Please, Please, Don't Let_______Join CS.COM!!

[travelinman67]

Won't say the name but he knows Everything there is to know or you need to know about TxSt..... just ask him.

I think you mean Texas State - San Marcos. Can't forget the San Marcos

What's sad, is that I've seen him post some pretty inventive stuff...yet, like ******, it seems as though he's slipped off his meds the past couple years. While never too concerned about developing respectful communications with other posters, he's deteriorated to a level that I don't know of ANYONE who respects him or cares if he posts or not...has become a classic "small man" seeking consolation by harming others.

[Appaholic]

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

That's where he hides the bodies

Just remember, according to JSO, pedophilia is okay because it is natural.

And torturing animals is not a crime because they are your property....

[wideright82]

Just remember, according to JSO, pedophilia is okay because it is natural.

And torturing animals is not a crime because they are your property....

I would be banned in a second if I ever got to read some of those JSO posts. Fcuk him.

[OB55]

The dude must eat acid for breakfast every morning, it seems to be the only logical explanation.

[BlueHen86]

The dude must eat acid for breakfast every morning, it seems to be the only logical explanation.

I think that is the standard diet for beings from his planet.

[AZGrizFan]

Just remember, according to JSO, pedophilia is okay because it is natural.

And torturing animals is not a crime because they are your property....

And driving shit-faced drunk shouldn't be a crime because thousands of people do it every day, and you shouldn't get arrested unless you actually KILL someone.

[Appaholic]

And torturing animals is not a crime because they are your property....

And driving shit-faced drunk shouldn't be a crime because thousands of people do it every day, and you shouldn't get arrested unless you actually KILL someone.

Well...actually I do agree with that....arresting someone for drunk-driving without the wreck is kind of like arresting women for prostitution because the COULD sell the puss....but I know I'm in the minority....great, give 'em a ticket, but studies have shown.01 is no more dangerous than driving while on cell-phone....it's a sacred cow easy money-generator for the state thanks to MADD....

[wideright82]

And driving shit-faced drunk shouldn't be a crime because thousands of people do it every day, and you shouldn't get arrested unless you actually KILL someone.

Well...actually I do agree with that....arresting someone for drunk-driving without the wreck is kind of like arresting women for prostitution because the COULD sell the puss....but I know I'm in the minority....great, give 'em a ticket, but studies have shown.01 is no more dangerous than driving while on cell-phone....it's a sacred cow easy money-generator for the state thanks to MADD....

[Appaholic]

Well...actually I do agree with that....arresting someone for drunk-driving without the wreck is kind of like arresting women for prostitution because the COULD sell the puss....but I know I'm in the minority....great, give 'em a ticket, but studies have shown.01 is no more dangerous than driving while on cell-phone....it's a sacred cow easy money-generator for the state thanks to MADD....

ehhh....bad example....OK, here goes...it is a tragedy when anyone is killed due to someone else's irresponsible behavior....the drunk who kills someone should have the book thrown at them.....but being drunk is not the only irresponsible behavior behind the wheel.....my grandmother was killed at her mailbox by a lady who dropped her drink going down the road and reached down to fetch it thereby taking her eyes off of the road and swerving into my grandmother. She doesn't have a criminal record even though she killed someone through a momentary irresponsible action...I do have a criminal record because I was unfortunate to hit a raodblock...if it's about keeping people safe, then the punishment for ANY irresponsible behavior behind the wheel should be treated the same....a little consistency...

[wideright82]

ehhh....bad example....OK, here goes...it is a tragedy when anyone is killed due to someone else's irresponsible behavior....the drunk who kills someone should have the book thrown at them.....but being drunk is not the only irresponsible behavior behind the wheel.....my grandmother was killed at her mailbox by a lady who dropped her drink going down the road and reached down to fetch it thereby taking her eyes off of the road and swerving into my grandmother. She doesn't have a criminal record even though she killed someone through a momentary irresponsible action...I do have a criminal record because I was unfortunate to hit a raodblock...if it's about keeping people safe, then the punishment for ANY irresponsible behavior behind the wheel should be treated the same....a little consistency...

Appa, it is more than a momentary irresponsible act. It is the alcohol that more than likely caused the lack of judgement. What is done has to be done to protect the populus not just the select few who may be able to drive at .10. If you talk on the phone in NJ, you get a ticket, and I am sure if you happen to kill someone while doing so, you get a little more. I am sorry about your grandmother, but that woman didn't make a conscious decision to put other people in harms way. When you drove drunk, you made a conscious decision to break the law, and ultimately smashed into something becasue of it. Have I driven drunk before, yeah probably, and do i regret it, yer damn right I do. There is a difference between doing something stupid when you have control over it, i.e Just don't drink and drive, and an innocent lack of control, i.e getting a waterbottle stuck under the brake or something. I agree that driving laws are stupid in a lot of cases, but people are stupid more so, and I just don't think drinking and driving is worth the risk.

[soul man]

Me

just kidding---

But I am checking out for a while... I ain't gone forever, but ya'll keep the home fires burning, fighting against the perceived injustices of the world and the internet, and having fun. Later.

[dbackjon]

Me

just kidding---

But I am checking out for a while... I ain't gone forever, but ya'll keep the home fires burning, fighting against the perceived injustices of the world and the internet, and having fun. Later.

Say it ain't so, Joe!

[Appaholic]

ehhh....bad example....OK, here goes...it is a tragedy when anyone is killed due to someone else's irresponsible behavior....the drunk who kills someone should have the book thrown at them.....but being drunk is not the only irresponsible behavior behind the wheel.....my grandmother was killed at her mailbox by a lady who dropped her drink going down the road and reached down to fetch it thereby taking her eyes off of the road and swerving into my grandmother. She doesn't have a criminal record even though she killed someone through a momentary irresponsible action...I do have a criminal record because I was unfortunate to hit a raodblock...if it's about keeping people safe, then the punishment for ANY irresponsible behavior behind the wheel should be treated the same....a little consistency...

Appa, it is more than a momentary irresponsible act. It is the alcohol that more than likely caused the lack of judgement. What is done has to be done to protect the populus not just the select few who may be able to drive at .10. If you talk on the phone in NJ, you get a ticket, and I am sure if you happen to kill someone while doing so, you get a little more. I am sorry about your grandmother, but that woman didn't make a conscious decision to put other people in harms way. When you drove drunk, you made a conscious decision to break the law, and ultimately smashed into something becasue of it. Have I driven drunk before, yeah probably, and do i regret it, yer damn right I do. There is a difference between doing something stupid when you have control over it, i.e Just don't drink and drive, and an innocent lack of control, i.e getting a waterbottle stuck under the brake or something. I agree that driving laws are stupid in a lot of cases, but people are stupid more so, and I just don't think drinking and driving is worth the risk.

I'm not disagreeing with your reasoning, I'm just asking for a little consistency or honesty. If it's about safety, then sentence all unsafe acts (like cell talking) with equal vigilence. And you're right, it is more a momentary irresponsible act. But people make decisions when they've been drinking they wouldn't do sober. So does the punishment fit the crime? So, is making a conscience decision to talk on the cell phone in 5pm heavy traffic more responsible than driving at .08 after midnight? Which act is more likely to affect the most innocent drivers based upon traffic volume? They are both equally irresponsible and should both be equally punished in the same manner. Since they are not, I can only assume the government has found an unsympathetic group in which to procure additional revenue....consistency or honesty?...how about both.

[wideright82]

Appa I agree for the most part, I just think that is reason to make other offenses more severely punished, not undermine the severity of drinking and driving. It is also illegal to talk on the cell phone in NJ, and I'd imagine there is a steep punishment for it as well. I know just being seen is enough for a ticket, and getting into an accident/killing someone, would probably result in anything from a serious amount of points to vehicular manslaughter. I am hoping the rest of the country starts taking cell phones and driving seriously.





What the fuck is this thread actually about. Sorry guys.

[Appaholic]

Appa I agree for the most part, I just think that is reason to make other offenses more severely punished, not undermine the severity of drinking and driving. It is also illegal to talk on the cell phone in NJ, and I'd imagine there is a steep punishment for it as well. I know just being seen is enough for a ticket, and getting into an accident/killing someone, would probably result in anything from a serious amount of points to vehicular manslaughter. I am hoping the rest of the country starts taking cell phones and driving seriously.





What the [*]f**k is this thread actually about. Sorry guys.

Yeah, no sh!t...sorry guys....this was supposed to be a smack thread....

and it sounds like we're talking about the same thing WR....not lessen the severity of DWI punishment, but treat equally irresponsible behavior just as severe as it is just as much a problem...

[wideright82]

Appa I agree for the most part, I just think that is reason to make other offenses more severely punished, not undermine the severity of drinking and driving. It is also illegal to talk on the cell phone in NJ, and I'd imagine there is a steep punishment for it as well. I know just being seen is enough for a ticket, and getting into an accident/killing someone, would probably result in anything from a serious amount of points to vehicular manslaughter. I am hoping the rest of the country starts taking cell phones and driving seriously.





What the [*]f**k is this thread actually about. Sorry guys.

Yeah, no sh!t...sorry guys....this was supposed to be a smack thread....

and it sounds like we're talking about the same thing WR....not lessen the severity of DWI punishment, but treat equally irresponsible behavior just as severe as it is just as much a problem...

Sounds like it appa, consistency



Back on topic fellas.

[dbackjon]

It's not rape. Not really. We've diluted the meaning of the term "rape" by calling consensual sex between two reproductive aged members of opposite sexes that because of arbitrarily established age limits. There's a huge difference between one person forcing someone who doesn't want to have sex with them to have sex with them and a person above an age limit arbitrarily established by a culture having sex with someone who wants to have sex with them but is below that age limit.


Subject: 15 year old male, 26-year old female teacher...

Can you guess the author?

[wideright82]

It's not rape. Not really. We've diluted the meaning of the term "rape" by calling consensual sex between two reproductive aged members of opposite sexes that because of arbitrarily established age limits. There's a huge difference between one person forcing someone who doesn't want to have sex with them to have sex with them and a person above an age limit arbitrarily established by a culture having sex with someone who wants to have sex with them but is below that age limit.


Subject: 15 year old male, 26-year old female teacher...

Can you guess the author?

Well looks like I'm about to get banned... i'll be right back

[dbackjon]

It's not rape. Not really. We've diluted the meaning of the term "rape" by calling consensual sex between two reproductive aged members of opposite sexes that because of arbitrarily established age limits. There's a huge difference between one person forcing someone who doesn't want to have sex with them to have sex with them and a person above an age limit arbitrarily established by a culture having sex with someone who wants to have sex with them but is below that age limit.


Subject: 15 year old male, 26-year old female teacher...

Can you guess the author?

Well looks like I'm about to get banned... i'll be right back

Excellent post, btw!

[wideright82]

Well looks like I'm about to get banned... i'll be right back

Excellent post, btw!

Thanks, fucking sick fuck. I will have something serious to say if I get any sort of "reprimanding" for calling out a pedophile\.

[JMU DJ]

Excellent post, btw!

Thanks, f**k[*] sick [*]f**k. I will have something serious to say if I get any sort of "reprimanding" for calling out a pedophile\.

seriously, is this guy thinking?

[wideright82]

Thanks, f**k[*] sick [*]f**k. I will have something serious to say if I get any sort of "reprimanding" for calling out a pedophile\.

seriously, is this guy thinking?

Thinking he's fucking Socrates or some shit. This ain't 400bc and this ain't Greece bitch. what a loon

[wideright82]

I wonder what the chances of going unscathed by that are. Maybe we should start taking bets.

[dbackjon]

I wonder what the chances of going unscathed by that are. Maybe we should start taking bets.

2-1

[wideright82]

I wonder what the chances of going unscathed by that are. Maybe we should start taking bets.

2-1

See I was thinking more 5-3.