Michael

What do you suppose this dog dreams?

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years...318091dog1.html

Maybe they do not do those are manufacturer recalls in Afg?

All things come from God and all things return to Him.

Actually, not funny at all.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/03/09/Eld...39751236597845/

Thank you all for the helpful explosion of replies!

Do I understand correctly, then, that with the possible exceptions of professional racing cars, tankers, and fuel-containers stored in a vehicle's cab or trunk, in MVCs:

1) fires occur only immediately on impact, and that

2) tires or whatever else that might explode will do so only during a pre-existing fire, and that

3) a vehicle not already on fire is therefore safe to approach?

So under what circumstances do firefighters hose down engine-blocks? I interpreted what I saw as preventive, but did I simply arrive after the flames had been extinguished?

So cars never explode or ignite from impact? Or is it that every burning car began burning at the moment of impact, in which case cars not already burning are entirely safe to approach without risk of fire? Hosing down an engine at an MVC is never a cautionary/preventive measure? What about vehicles transporting flammable materials?

I know these may seem silly questions, but they're silly only if you know the correct answers and aren't misled by widespread misconceptions.

The only problems I've ever heard French accents creating was when the woman interviewed about what she most wanted in life replied that she wanted what everyone wants, namely "Happiness," and the customer who asked the waitress for "A fork and knife."

Bienvenu!

Would someone please remind me what factors create the risk of car's engine exploding? I recall it was touched on here. A panic reported in this article - http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2009/0...ext_top_mo.html - was apparently fed by a common belief that overheated or crashed auto engines are unstable. That made me think it would be useful to know the specific conditions for such occurrences, if there are any.

Thanks, spenac.

Hey detectives, what medical condition(s) is/are possibly indicated by normal food, such as a bagel, tasting bitter?

A friend in another city, a bit over 40, says she overdid sit-ups after being out of shape, and later felt extremely ill - almost enough to go to the ER, but pulled through; friend is very reluctant to impose on anyone (which is how you know this isn't about me! ).

S/s described as progressively worsening abdominal pain, greatly intensifying after seven hours, "as though someone were grinding his fist through my abdominal wall and into my back," inability to stand up straight, sensation of cold sweeping down from head into arms and chest, followed by inability to stand up at all, profuse diaphoresis, tachy, rapid, shallow respiration, tremor in arms when trying to support torso off floor. Friend is stoic to a fault, and not given to hallucinations.

2 ibuprofen stopped the pain enough for her to sleep, followed the next day by transient flu symptoms. But bitter taste/aftertaste to sweet food persists.

I know, I know,"See your doctor," but she feels otherwise okay; it was I who vaguely recalled the bitter-taste syndrome and wonder whether there's something more than just weirdness to the scenario.

I'm all for the eye for an eye thing. I bet it would stop a lot of the craziness here in the States. Hurt someone, get hurt. Kill and be killed. Rapist and pedophiles get their peckers cut off. Steal something and work for who you stole it from till it's paid for.

Does anyone think that won't work? If so, why?

I like the restitution part of your formula, and I would extend it to every class of wrongdoing I can think of. Seems more constructive that vengeance.

As for revenge, do you find less craziness in Iran than here?

Also, a rapist or pedophile who fears castration may have a greater incentive to kill his victims and witnesses in order to avoid capture/conviction.

Also, juries that find penalties too harsh will refrain from convicting. That's what's what I'm told happened under the ancient Greek lawgiver nicknamed Draco (= "The Dragon," from which we get the phrase "draconian punishment"), whose statutes mandated penalties juries found excessive: Criminals could count on going free because they knew juries wouldn't want them executed for stealing.

Also, compensating victims of wrongful convictions is difficult when the sentence was death or dismemberment.

Those are a few of the problems I see. It's hard to appeal the Law of Unintended Consequences.

"May I speak with Mr. Vyshali?'

"He'll be with you shortly."

There's no such thing as a free lunch.

That depends on your species.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article2289073.ece

The problem with that theory is that it is difficult to tell who is trying to "punish", and who is simply trying to deter.

To the case in point, the question is whether an LEO has a right violently to deter free speech because it hurts his feelings.

Generally, I'd also be wary of those in whom the desire to deter is very strong. As you advised on another thread, "One should certainly give serious consideration to the possible results of his or her actions, and whether one is prepared to deal with those consequences. But to spend a significant part of your life obsessing about it when it quite possibly may never happen is an unreasonable stressor that most people do not need in their life."

That goes double for inflicting unreasonable stressors on other people, and multiple times for physically attacking them.

Beware of all in whom the urge to punish is very strong.

I'm betting that the shoe was simply the final straw after probably over an hour of her mouth and physical resistance. I'm sure she was warned to get her attitude straight or face the consequences. She decided to play, and she got to pay. No injuries, but a nice lesson for her.

I'd be surprised if the officer neglected to mention that she physically resisted any order, such as to remove her shoes, as well as everything else we see her doing on the tapes, while he cited her exercise of her Constitutional right to free speech as a factor in his attack. On my understanding, the law guarantees detained suspects the right to preserve attitudes that law-enforcement agents may find crooked, and whose violent straightening is not their duty and not their right.

Is her name Deputy Paul Schene of the Seattle Police Department, and did she recently respond to a detainee's exercise of her Constitutional right to free expression by slamming said detainee's head against a wall?

What statute prohibits lippyness?

it doesn't make me want to attack her. It makes me want the police to do it for me.

With the camera running? She might agree with you!

Of course, it could have been worse.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/articl...w_PCdQD96MHVJ05

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=bc3_1236044276

Doesn't make me feel like attacking anyone, but what do I know.

Twenty bucks says he does.

I predict that she is learning how to make big bucks by provoking cops to be kinda barbaric.