"Stan Gula" wrote in message
news:kA_Ud.37940$ya6.26994@trndny01...
Wayne Knight wrote:
wrote:

Oh yeah? I'll see your link, and raise you...well, it won't be a
glass of sherry...



http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp.../odd_sherry_dc

I'm glad to see someone came up with a use for Sherry besides ruining
a cut of meat. But then again if she'd just cut his meat, the jail
time might have been less.

And speaking of which:
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/news/nat...ifeattack.html

She flushed it down the toilet and they reattached it! You know that's
gonna get infected...


Well, I tell ya that the strategy she used would certainly convince ME to
stay! If she did that to a guy she WANTED, what would she do a guy who
JILTED her??

--riverman
Like they say: in Alaska, the odds are good, but the goods are odd.....

On 1 Mar 2005 05:51:37 -0800, "Wayne Knight" wrote:


Kevin Vang wrote:

I'd take that with a grain of salt until all the facts
are in... You see this a lot. Whenever a kid gets in
trouble at school, the school officials are not allowed
to comment because of confidentiality regs, but the kid
(and his or her parents and lawyers) can say any damn
thing without fear of contradiction. I'd be willing to
bet that there's more to this story,

There may be more to the story but we are talking rubber bands here.
This kind of crap ranks up there with the stories you see about kids
suspended and expelled for bringing cold meds and butter knives to
school.

I saw an AP story this morning where the FCC rightfully said The cusing
and violence in Saving Private Ryan was not considered obsence. But
there was a quote in the article which the FCC said "its indecency and
profanity guidelines were not applicable to violent programming."
Basically you can't watch em make the baby but you can watch em kill
the baby.

And lastly I read where smokers may no longer carry cigarette lighters
in the airport security areas and on airplanes.

I think it is just butane lighters, but...

Somewhere along the way, the baby went out with the bath water, and
zero tolerance became an excuse for not having common sense.

Somewhere along the line we have gotten very lost

While I agree with you, generally and in principle, a couple of questions: what
exactly does "zero tolerance" mean, and how about using "common sense" in the
criminal justice system, such as no appeals for ANY technicality when guilt is
obvious by using common sense? Wait, three questions - who gets to decide
what's "common sense?" Naturally, if the person proposing the system does,
it's, well, the "common-sense approach." OTOH, if someone else does, that
system is a complete and total violation of their human rights, the Bill of
Rights, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and if some lawyer
can convince the jury of it when they sue, contrary to the laws of God, man, and
beast...

TC,
R

On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 02:12:20 -0500, "asadi" wrote:

Perfect apéritif for those little peanut butter cookies....

Ya know, you're right...if she had shoved a few cookies up there with the
sherry, her excuse might have sounded a little more. er, passable...of course,
OTOH, if she had hired the Girl Scout to do it, HOO-BOY...dying with an ass full
of sherry while a hired Girl Scout shoves peanut butter cookies up his
bunghole...ignominiousness versus legend...

TC,
R

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 15:28:01 GMT, wrote:

On 1 Mar 2005 05:51:37 -0800, "Wayne Knight" wrote:

And lastly I read where smokers may no longer carry cigarette lighters
in the airport security areas and on airplanes.

I think it is just butane lighters, but...

It's any type of lighter:
http://www.tsa.gov/public/display?th...00051980104b15
--
Charlie...
http://www.chocphoto.com/ - photo galleries
http://www.chocphoto.com/roff

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 10:41:33 -0500, Charlie Choc
wrote:

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 15:28:01 GMT, wrote:

On 1 Mar 2005 05:51:37 -0800, "Wayne Knight" wrote:

And lastly I read where smokers may no longer carry cigarette lighters
in the airport security areas and on airplanes.

I think it is just butane lighters, but...

It's any type of lighter:
http://www.tsa.gov/public/display?th...00051980104b15

Ah, that explains it - it isn't to be "fully enforced" until April 15...hmmm -
April 15...

TC,
R

"Charlie Choc" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 15:28:01 GMT, wrote:

On 1 Mar 2005 05:51:37 -0800, "Wayne Knight"
wrote:

And lastly I read where smokers may no longer carry cigarette
lighters
in the airport security areas and on airplanes.

I think it is just butane lighters, but...

It's any type of lighter:
http://www.tsa.gov/public/display?th...00051980104b15

Yah, big deal. So, after the next successful hijacking they make all
the passengers ride naked.

It's the one after THAT that worries me. :(

Wolfgang
save lives.....arm passengers.

wrote:

While I agree with you, generally and in principle, a couple of
questions: what
exactly does "zero tolerance" mean,

In particular, i was referring to silly assed policies, most often
associated with school systems. While i am not going to sit around and
google up news articles to support my whine, It is not hard to find
stories where Sally packed her lunch and brought a plastic knife to
spread stuff and got expelled for carrying a weapon because that is the
policy. Regardless of the circumstances, i fail to see how shooting a
rubber band merits something more than dentention or a paddling where
it is still allowed,

and how about using "common sense" in the
criminal justice system, such as no appeals for ANY technicality when
guilt is
obvious by using common sense?

I think the techincality aspect in ensuring the accused rights are
followed is one of those areas that rational people will always
disagree over. The rules exist for a reason dating back to the 1700's
and beyond. While it tugs at the emotions when someone who was
*obviously* guilty gets off due to some *techinicality* when in my mind
the question is how many innocent people keep from getting incarcerated
thanks to those tecnicalities. How many reports have been published of
people spending years in jail only to now get cleared thanks to
improvement in DNA studies and other forensic tools that were convicted
based on heresay, poor eyewitness testimony, shoddy police work etc?
Just imagine how many more there could have been.

Wait, three questions - who gets to decide
what's "common sense?"

Silly Boy! That answer is easy. I get to decide g

it's, well, the "common-sense approach." OTOH, if someone else does,
that
system is a complete and total violation of their human rights, the
Bill of
Rights, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and if
some lawyer
can convince the jury of it when they sue,

The problem from my point of view is not so much the lawyers (attempts
to improve their wallets with **** like the tobacco suits, non profit
healthcare suits , and class action notwithstanding), but one the poor
saps who can't get out of jury duty, regadless of what Mr. harrison may
think, juries get treated like crap and most people able to
differentiate the nuances of a case get excluded anyway.

And the need to have a damn law, regulation, or policy for everything.
When that way of thinking went into effect, accountibility,
responsibility and common sense. There's a good reason why the owner's
manual to my car is a hundred of so pages but the constition takes up a
few pages in the back of a history book.

contrary to the laws of God, man, and
beast...

I beleive the most recent beast story came out of wisconsin last week.
Opie posted the link.

Now if you excuse me, I need to book a flight so I can still use my
zippo to burn toilet paper in the plane's john.

Stan Gula wrote:
Wayne Knight wrote:

I'm glad to see someone came up with a use for Sherry besides ruining
a cut of meat. But then again if she'd just cut his meat, the jail
time might have been less.


And speaking of which:
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/news/nat...ifeattack.html

She flushed it down the toilet and they reattached it! You know that's
gonna get infected...

It never ceases to amaze me that people on ROFF can seem to call up link
after link about the most disgusting stories, with apparently such
little effort. What a bunch of sick puppies.

Tim Lysyk

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 23:07:12 GMT, Tim Lysyk
wrote:

Stan Gula wrote:
Wayne Knight wrote:

I'm glad to see someone came up with a use for Sherry besides ruining
a cut of meat. But then again if she'd just cut his meat, the jail
time might have been less.


And speaking of which:
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/news/nat...ifeattack.html

She flushed it down the toilet and they reattached it! You know that's
gonna get infected...

It never ceases to amaze me that people on ROFF can seem to call up link
after link about the most disgusting stories, with apparently such
little effort. What a bunch of sick puppies.

Why, thank you, kind sir...seriously, it isn't that difficult, sick, or weird
when you think about it - all I had to do is type "sherry enema murderess" into
Google...

wrote:

Why, thank you, kind sir...seriously, it isn't that difficult, sick, or weird
when you think about it - all I had to do is type "sherry enema murderess" into
Google...


I don't know about that. Some might think that typing "sherry enema
murdress" into google might be a bizarre thinkg to do.

Let's try "oral drano murderer"...oh look, google comes up with:

http://www.serve.com/PHIHOM/articles/homoserial.htm

I guess you are right.

Tim Lysyk