Texsox

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 24, 2007 -> 11:56 AM) I'd bill the organization running the trip - Boy Scouts of America. I know it doesn't seem fair, but you cannot expect the Podunk County, North Carolina Fire Rescue Team to be judge and jury on who to bill and not bill. Techinically the BSA wasn't running the event. It was a local unit event, and I guess you could bill the Church who sponsors the Troop. The non-billing groups do not expect them to be judge and jury, they would expect a court to decide based on negligence, same as any other civil case. Makes sense to me.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 24, 2007 -> 11:50 AM) Well Tex, you know I would appreciate that these scouts were as prepared as they were. I am glad to see that. But as far as the rescue bill, I have to think they should be billed. Those rescue services provide an expensive, and risky service, and 80% of what they do is rescue people who did very stupid things. I think it would be unreasonable and perhaps even illegal for those services to start decided who does and does not get billed, based on their level of preparedness. You pretty much have to bill everyone. basically the argument is this, they never really needed rescue. The alternative was to continue to try and find their way out to avoid a bill that certainly would be in the thousands of dollars. Why would we want to reward risky behavior and punish smart behavior? I agree when some ill prepared newbie with a cell phone and a DVD of Survivorman pulls a stupid stunt, bill them, but this group wasn't negligent. I agree that a bill everyone is a simpler policy, but billing based on negligent behavior is fairer. In this group, would you bill everyone? Just the adults? The adult in charge? Tough call.

More jobs for Mexico workers and US managers on the border. I think all of us here would be willing to take cuts in pay and benefits to keep our jobs. Especially if there is no assurance of future employment.

I don't think of Frank or Thome for booming home runs, nothing can compare to a Kittle moon shot. I get goosebumps as I write this. I think he nailed 5 or 6 at the old park, f***ing A-mazing!

I was not speaking specifically about this man and probable cause, it was a generalization of those who seem willing to toss away freedoms as long as it is based on a group they don't agree with. Outraged because some crazy is speaking and his rhetoric isn't worth the paper it's written on? Seems like style over substance. Seems backward that this guy should receive all that attention. That would add legitimacy to the speech. I go with the benign neglect approach. Liberals? Yep, here's what that outstanding liberal Nuke said QUOTE(Brian @ Sep 24, 2007 -> 09:07 AM) Nobody should show up. Students, press, nobody. Let him talk to an empty room. Quote Nuke: I agree with you in principle but it's kind of like a car wreck or a freak show. People will show up out of morbid curiosity.

Discussions around the Scouting virtual campfire ponders if the Troop will be presented with a Search and Rescue bill even though they did exactly what they should have done, hunkered down and waited for morning. In my opinion the SAR group erred in starting a search after dark when the group clearly had the skills and equipment to survive a night out. The only mistake that the Troop might have given was offering a "start searching" date. I've filed trip plans where I expected to be back in communication by Sunday at 5:00 PM, don't start searching until Monday at noon in case I'm slow coming down that ridge.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Sep 24, 2007 -> 10:36 AM) And that's pretty much what the Bushies say. We allow him to come here and express his beliefs, so why don't Iran try it? Well Jenks and a couple others here would agree with Iran on not allowing Bush to speak. That seems reasonable, why allow someone who is so radically different than you, who speaks out against what you believe in, to speak? I think it proves what NSS said, we're better for it.

If we truly believe in freedom of speech, doesn't it show the world we can walk the talk? Isn't there some value in that? It seems we only believe in freedom of speech we agree with. Forget about probable cause and innocent until proven guilty. It saddens me how fast some groups will toss away our ideals.

QUOTE(Steve9347 @ Sep 24, 2007 -> 10:04 AM) Yeah, I saw this like 3 months ago. I hate the chef on it so don't regularly tune in, but did enjoy this episode for obvious reasons. It's cool the Sox opened up the doors and let him do it at the Cell. I can't figure out how he has that gig? I'm burned out by a couple of the Food Network personalities, Emeril, Rach, but give me back to back Good Eats and I'm a happy camper.

The Bears do not have a Pro Bowl caliber QB on the roster. Three weeks with Greise, and the Rex chants will begin. Cowboys are for real. Sucks to live in Texas when the "boys have a closer to great than good" team.

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Sep 24, 2007 -> 10:14 AM) I think it's logical. Looking at it from a gun to taser that is logical. Looking at that from handcuffs to taser it isn't. With this kid, what was the taser used instead of? A gun? Handcuffs? A kick in the ass? So it is less deadly than a gun, but is it less deadly than what is most likely to have been used instead? I don't know. Perhaps more people were killed with handcuffs, then you are accurate. Anyhow, this has reached the silly point. Better fish to fry.

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Sep 24, 2007 -> 09:41 AM) ss2k5 in Trooper Sex thread in the buster.... 1/2 because "slobbering on his nob" 1/2 because I vomitted in my mouth a little. maybe someone here can give you advice on how to get around the gag reflex

It seemed like a non controversial point a couple days ago It only shows how stupid some people think the public is. Put a nice name on it and we slobber and want one. As I mentioned, they are great tools, too bad they can't just say, hey. someone may be seriously harmed by one of these, but by not using it, many more, including many more good guys, will be harmed. So we use less-lethal weapons. And isn't less-lethal, my radio name in college, just as catchy and more accurate than non-deadly?

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Sep 24, 2007 -> 09:56 AM) 9mm are meant to kill people. rubber bullets meant to incapacitate. Tasers immobilize. lassos for a good ol' boot scootin' good time. I think more people are in need of a good immobilization than we admit. Jesse Jackson comes to mind. All valid points, but what does "non" mean?

I believe the American public, for the most part, thinks that everyone thinks like us. They think everyine believes what we believe. It is informative, and in the long run, a good thing, when mainstream Americans understand they do not, not by a wide margin.

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Sep 24, 2007 -> 09:32 AM) because the end game of the taser is immobilization. It's intended purpose is non-deadly. It is still a weapon (something used by one person against another person with intent to do harm or to coerce. *my definition* ), but with everything with any striation, different classes are assigned to help the lay person dilineate between items. for the record, 98% fat free isn't a classification as much a marketing scheme. I would liken "non-deadly" v. "deadly" weapons to "skim" vs. "whole milk"... Skim is good for you, while Whole milk will kill ya:) The end game of a 9mm is also immobilization Skim is no longer being used, fat free has replaced it. And I'm glad you used milk as an example. Whole milk is around 4-5% fat. 2% is 2% fat, 1% is 1% fat. I guess it all hinges on what "non" means. If you believe non means "only once in a while" then it is an accurate description. If you believe non means never, then it isn't. I think non-deadly gives the public a different impression of a taser than reality. I also think a taser, properly used, is an awesome weapon and probably saves lives, and saves injuries. And of course, Tasers don't kill people, people who are unruly in public and need a good immobilization, kill themselves.

Over all some good and some bad. It will be interesting how history judges him.

QUOTE(Brian @ Sep 24, 2007 -> 09:21 AM) Taped it and it helped me go to sleep a little fulfilled after that football game last night. Slight turn to the left was a great maneuver. Some of the animation was awesome. One question, when the Milenium Falcon sped up, who was the picture of that came up? Also, doesn't Cartoon Network replay the new ones from Fox a few days later. People who missed it should keep their eyes open. Cartoon Network announced at 10:00 CST before that night's episode that the replay would be in a few weeks.

I believe understanding the other side is a helpful tool in defeating them.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/24/scouts.missing/index.html I've been watching this for a few hours and knew they were fine once they found their cars in the parking lot. An auto accident was the worst case scenario They had done everything correctly and easily could have stayed a few days without any worries.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 24, 2007 -> 08:41 AM) I must say, that Star Wars Family Guy episode last night was one of the best animated shows I have seen in a long time. If you missed it, find it. And I can't believe no one has yet mentioned the Chicago Simpsons episode - it even had a White Sox reference! I only caught about the middle 30 minutes, but it was very well done. I loved how they could stay fairly loyal to the original and just by inserting enought Family Guy personality, it worked.

How many do they have to get right before it has any validity? 40%? 80% 100%

I had not seen it until this week. I think Veeck would be beaming. Anything to add fun.

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Sep 24, 2007 -> 08:32 AM) If they are NOT paying him, and are allowed to ask actual tough questions (NOT "boxers or briefs"), then I don't have a problem with him speaking there. Just make sure the cameras are rolling! However, he should not be allowed anywhere near ground zero. Probably too soon to be at ground zero. But we do allow Japanese tourists to tour the USS Arizona Memorial.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 24, 2007 -> 08:37 AM) That would be good. But honestly, they could easily have been fired in any case. The department was probably just afraid to for various reasons (dealing with the union, etc.). I mean, the guy with the threatening calls, that could be assault, or at least stalking. And sex in the car while on duty, from a work point of view, could be dereliction of duty, not to mention improper use of the equipment. I believe that is the proper use of that equipment