n23x

You personally? To what extent? .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

It isn't that big of a deal, and I agree they shouldn't have issued a correction. I suspect they did because they figured the same people that are bitching about an ipod would bitch about this. But once again, bowing, even if he was bowing, isn't a big deal. .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

Agreed! Perhaps that goes in both directions? Ouch. Negligence is not necessarily better than malice. I might be pissed if I had no pony in the race, and someone came over and killed my family "for the greater good". That's unfortunately a very slippery slope to stand on. .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

Marg (Nerdgirl), has posted a wealth of information w/r/t the actual vs. perceived utility of "enhanced interrogation". Saying "it works" while the data suggests otherwise doesn't make it work. If we are to consider ourselves of a higher standard than our enemies, we need to hold ourselves to that standard. .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

Ladies and gentlemen, A perfect example of self-loathing, closeted homosexuality: Don't try to change who you are on the inside, just your personality, general demeanor, morals, and ability to convey your message without implying the threat of physical harm. .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

? "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

I'm in no way condoning their actions. I don't think killing innocent civilians is in any way something to be proud of or support. Some random definition of coward that I pulled off teh intarwebs: Politely, you seem to be making the assumption that the only antonym of coward is hero, that is to say, if they're not a coward, they must be a hero. But perhaps they're just the agressor (which they were). You're emotionally hurt about it, that's fine. But recognize what you're saying, and realize that it makes you sound stupid. .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

Perhaps you need to look up the word coward. .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

I recommend you visit here. When Glen Beck's patriotism makes him cry, I cry too. .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

I read this, and then immediately thought about every job-shop owner's wife I ever knew (I programmed and designed fixtures for 5 years). To say they could scare the ugly off a toad is generous... Speaking from experience? .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

Sorry, that's not right. It's a capacitive sensor, no heat involved. Read more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Touchscreen#Capacitive I will agree that a majority of the people probably used the speeddial and accidently hit someone else's name. I have had zero issues with unlocking/dialing when i didn't intend to. .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

Just to be clear, you said, "Understand what I mean, not what I say". I cannot understand you because of your inability to convey your message, and I cannot help you because you are stuck with your old/tired arguements. Truly, dancing and rock and roll will be the end of civilization. .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

vs. Your arguement doesn't make sense. You initially suggest that the fear of consequences is so great that it is the only thing keeping users in check, but then admit that they might just be "looking over their shoulder", i.e. not a lot of concern for the law. If they aren't very concerned about the law, it's not fear that is keeping them acting responsibly, so saying that people will go nuts and unchecked if you legalize it is incorrect. How much, and (or at least) why? Of course they do. What do you estimate the current percentages of problem and casual teen drinkers/smokers to be? I believe those percentages are reasonably small, and don't think a new substance is going to provide an explosion of problems as long as it receives similar regulations. .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

Once again, I would wager that most recreational users don't give a fuck about the law, and have little concern with moderate public use. It is unreasonable to expect that the legalization or decriminalization of drugs for recreational use would extend to teenagers. So regardless of the availability to responsible adults, kids/teens would not be able to use. .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

I don't, nor do I have any interest in using. You're confusing responsibility with legality, and worse yet, you're arguing legality around issues with a very small cross section of all users. It's not a good arguement. .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

I disagree. I think a majority of regular users are responsible users, and further, would wager that a significant portion are more capable of evaluating "untested product" than some guy who thinks a drug is bad because it's on a list that says "ILLEGAL" at the top. Higher rates of exposure to both the physical qualities and experienced effects allow them to evaluate that far better than you, no? I agree, minus the "quotes". (1) I disagree, and (2) this blows your argument out of the water. If stigma and fear of law are enough for a person to act responsibly, they still retain the ability to act responsibly without fear of law. Jobs, spouses, kids and a host of other reasons are (I suspect) the primary reason that people act responsibly. In fact, I think that fear of law is VERY low on the list for most who choose to responsibly use. Stigma, perhaps, but that's only because nobody wants to be hassled by the soccer mom that just watched Reefer Madness. .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

What are you suggesting here? It seems like you're saying that cost is the only factor limiting many people from becoming addicts, and you make no distinction w/r/t responsible use. To gain some perspective, what do you believe to be the current ratio of responsible vs. irresponsible recreational drug users? How do you project that would change, if at all, if legalization or decriminalization were to occur? .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

I develop instruments that cut rocks and get a lot of frequent flier miles. .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

Time to post one of my favorite videos. .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

Everybody should simply recall that the poster expressing so much outrage used the same moral fiber to generate this post. .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

Touche! .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

Just to be clear, you ALL sound like fucking retards by limiting the transmission of AIDS to sexual activity. That being said, the pope has zero understanding of the of intersocial/sexual dynamics in Africa, and would be a bit like the 40 (800?) year-old virgin weighing in on the pros and cons of ANYTHING sex related. .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

So... How does that response in any way address what DanG said? Why don't you just say this: Just please don't take it out on the road, for ALL things that might impair your driving and be potentially harmful to others on the road. Can you comment on your perceived increase in drivers under the influence, given the legalization or decriminalization of drugs? Or is this a binary, "one is too many", issue for you? .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

That would be like saying: Here's my empirical data - Once there's no more skydiving-related deaths, then let's talk about legalizing BASE. I mean, come on, they're the same thing, right? .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

He meant "Poland is third world" in the same manner that Georgia (and the rest of the south, for that matter) is "third world" to the rest of us. .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC