Quote(CNN) -- At least 20 people were wounded in a shooting early Friday morning at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, an area hospital official told CNN.
All of the wounded suffered from gunshot wounds, which ranged from minor to critical, said Jacque Montgomery, a spokeswoman at the University of Colorado Hospital.
"They're arriving by police, by ambulance. Some are walking in," she said.
Police were responding to a "shooting incident" at the theater, a dispatcher told CNN. The dispatcher did not provide any additional details.
The shooting incident reportedly occurred during an early morning screening of the new Batman movie, "The Dark Knight Rises," witnesses told CNN affiliate KUSA.
"We saw people running around and screaming," a man, who was not identified, told KUSA.
He said there was confusion in the theater when the shooting began because many believed the sound of gunfire was coming from the movie next door.
Amazing commentary. The Bard couldn't have done it better.
Now saying 14 dead and 50 people hurt so far.
They were probably driven to do it by Rush Limbaugh.
People probably at first think that the sound of gun shots come from the movie, so they won't run.
Batman has: failed them.
Some men just want to watch the world burn. :(
At least 14 dead and 50 injured. The perpetrator carried a rifle and a shot gun. I can't even get through the bag search in my local suburban cinema complex with a bottle of water.
He was wearing riot gear and either a gas mask or goggles. Some reports say he let off a tear gas grenade.
Worthless comment on BBC coverage:
"Jenn, Denver emails: Aurora is known to have a very high crime rate and to be honest, as unfortunate as the circumstances, this is not that surprising for the area. "
That'll teach them to leave the house in such a dangerous area, then.
Maybe he dressed up as Bane?
EDIT: Watching the video here. The youngest at the Children's hospital is 6. :(
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/07/20/12850048-14-shot-dead-at-dark-knight-rises-screening-in-aurora-colorado
Quote from: Brazen on July 20, 2012, 05:20:19 AM
Some reports say he let off a tear gas grenade.
They're breaching his apartment from the outside. They don't want to open the door.
This is what happens when a society tolerates nerds, dweebs and geeks.
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 20, 2012, 07:50:35 AM
This is what happens when a society tolerates guns.
FYP
Talk radio this morning is blaming it on liberals.
Interesting how he gave himself up in the parking lot; usually mass shooting goofs don't allow themselves to be captured alive.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on July 20, 2012, 07:55:20 AM
Talk radio this morning is blaming it on liberals.
They always find a way.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 20, 2012, 07:56:03 AM
Interesting how he gave himself up in the parking lot; usually mass shooting goofs don't allow themselves to be captured alive.
Well, in
Dark Knight Joker allowed himself to be captured as well. :ph34r:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 20, 2012, 05:27:51 AM
EDIT: Watching the video here. The youngest at the Children's hospital is 6. :(
6 year-olds definitely shouldn't be watching midnight screenings.
Quote from: garbon on July 20, 2012, 08:14:00 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 20, 2012, 05:27:51 AM
EDIT: Watching the video here. The youngest at the Children's hospital is 6. :(
6 year-olds definitely shouldn't be watching midnight screenings.
Liberal parents. Serves them right. ;)
Quote from: garbon on July 20, 2012, 08:14:00 AM
6 year-olds definitely shouldn't be watching midnight screenings.
Apparently, there was a 3 month year old there. :hmm:
------
I'm watching the CNN and Fox News coverage. Already, some of the commentators are talking about violent video games and movies and how they probably influenced the shooter. :wacko:
-----
One last thought: You know some slimy Hollywood execs are pissed because this incident will scare some people from going to showings this weekend and therefore the movie won't set the new record for highest weekend opening gross.
Quote from: garbon on July 20, 2012, 08:14:00 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 20, 2012, 05:27:51 AM
EDIT: Watching the video here. The youngest at the Children's hospital is 6. :(
6 year-olds definitely shouldn't be watching midnight screenings.
This is what happens when a society tolerates a lack of affordable day care.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 20, 2012, 08:28:28 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 20, 2012, 08:14:00 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 20, 2012, 05:27:51 AM
EDIT: Watching the video here. The youngest at the Children's hospital is 6. :(
6 year-olds definitely shouldn't be watching midnight screenings.
This is what happens when a society tolerates a lack of affordable day care.
Is midnight considered day in Maryland?
Quote from: garbon on July 20, 2012, 08:31:07 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 20, 2012, 08:28:28 AM
This is what happens when a society tolerates a lack of affordable day care.
Is midnight considered day in Maryland?
Naturally you would play semantics with such a critical topic. :mad:
Quote from: stjaba on July 20, 2012, 08:25:37 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 20, 2012, 08:14:00 AM
6 year-olds definitely shouldn't be watching midnight screenings.
Apparently, there was a 3 month year old there. :hmm:
------
I'm watching the CNN and Fox News coverage. Already, some of the commentators are talking about violent video games and movies and how they probably influenced the shooter. :wacko:
-----
One last thought: You know some slimy Hollywood execs are pissed because this incident will scare some people from going to showings this weekend and therefore the movie won't set the new record for highest weekend opening gross.
Only an asshole would bring a baby to a movie.
Looks like the assailant was a mall-ninja type, given all the tactical gear he was wearing.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 20, 2012, 08:36:49 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 20, 2012, 08:31:07 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 20, 2012, 08:28:28 AM
This is what happens when a society tolerates a lack of affordable day care.
Is midnight considered day in Maryland?
Naturally you would play semantics with such a critical topic. :mad:
I think it is okay for our society not to provide care at midnight so that parents can hang out at a late night movie. :P
3 month old baby is the youngest victim, in fair condition. :(
Dude used tear gas. How hard is that to get for civilians.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 20, 2012, 09:21:41 AM
3 month old baby is the youngest victim, in fair condition. :(
Dude used tear gas. How hard is that to get for civilians.
Easy enough for one asshole to get a hold of a canister every now & then. When I was in college some jerk dropped one in a crowded night club I was in. People on the first floor panicked and some were trampled. People on the second floor broke out windows and I think a couple even jumped out.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on July 20, 2012, 08:50:24 AM
Quote from: stjaba on July 20, 2012, 08:25:37 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 20, 2012, 08:14:00 AM
6 year-olds definitely shouldn't be watching midnight screenings.
Apparently, there was a 3 month year old there. :hmm:
------
I'm watching the CNN and Fox News coverage. Already, some of the commentators are talking about violent video games and movies and how they probably influenced the shooter. :wacko:
-----
One last thought: You know some slimy Hollywood execs are pissed because this incident will scare some people from going to showings this weekend and therefore the movie won't set the new record for highest weekend opening gross.
Only an asshole would bring a baby to a movie.
I saw a baby get hit by a foul ball at a Reds game one time. I wondered who the hell wants to bring a baby to a baseball game, particularly on one of the hotter days in August.
Well, on the bright side, this might make it easier to get in to see TDKR this weekend.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 20, 2012, 07:56:03 AM
Interesting how he gave himself up in the parking lot; usually mass shooting goofs don't allow themselves to be captured alive.
Breivik in Norway gave himself up. :huh:
Quote from: stjaba on July 20, 2012, 08:25:37 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 20, 2012, 08:14:00 AM
6 year-olds definitely shouldn't be watching midnight screenings.
Apparently, there was a 3 month year old there. :hmm:
:hmm:
Quote from: Barrister on July 20, 2012, 09:35:29 AM
Breivik in Norway gave himself up. :huh:
Sure, but he was Norwegian. They're not as experienced with mass killings as Americans are.
Quote from: garbon on July 20, 2012, 09:19:13 AM
I think it is okay for our society not to provide care at midnight so that parents can hang out at a late night movie. :P
What about parents who work the night shift, huh? :mad:
Quote from: derspiess on July 20, 2012, 09:28:25 AM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on July 20, 2012, 08:50:24 AM
Quote from: stjaba on July 20, 2012, 08:25:37 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 20, 2012, 08:14:00 AM
6 year-olds definitely shouldn't be watching midnight screenings.
Apparently, there was a 3 month year old there. :hmm:
------
I'm watching the CNN and Fox News coverage. Already, some of the commentators are talking about violent video games and movies and how they probably influenced the shooter. :wacko:
-----
One last thought: You know some slimy Hollywood execs are pissed because this incident will scare some people from going to showings this weekend and therefore the movie won't set the new record for highest weekend opening gross.
Only an asshole would bring a baby to a movie.
I saw a baby get hit by a foul ball at a Reds game one time. I wondered who the hell wants to bring a baby to a baseball game, particularly on one of the hotter days in August.
In my experience babies (in particular young babies) are actually pretty easy to take out to events. They don't need much attention, just feed them when appropriate. They are much easier to take places than my 2 year old is.
Quote from: Kleves on July 20, 2012, 09:33:49 AM
Well, on the bright side, this might make it easier to get in to see TDKR this weekend.
I have to admit - I chuckled. :)
Quote from: Barrister on July 20, 2012, 09:35:29 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 20, 2012, 07:56:03 AM
Interesting how he gave himself up in the parking lot; usually mass shooting goofs don't allow themselves to be captured alive.
Breivik in Norway gave himself up. :huh:
Was he an American goof? No. So STFU.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 20, 2012, 09:38:00 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 20, 2012, 09:19:13 AM
I think it is okay for our society not to provide care at midnight so that parents can hang out at a late night movie. :P
What about parents who work the night shift, huh? :mad:
Sucks to be them.
Quote from: Barrister on July 20, 2012, 09:38:22 AM
In my experience babies (in particular young babies) are actually pretty easy to take out to events. They don't need much attention, just feed them when appropriate. They are much easier to take places than my 2 year old is.
That's not my experience. When Tommy was two he'd sit and watch most of the game. He could walk, so I didn't have to carry him 100% of the time. And like I said, this was August (which is hot down here) and at a baseball game, in a seating area where you'd expect foul balls.
FBI and police officer just spoke, dude's apartment really is booby trapped!
An aspiring sports broadcaster was killed: http://deadspin.com/5927673/aspiring-sportscaster-killed-in-shooting-at-colorado-movie-theater
The creepy part? Apparently, she narrowly avoided a mass shooting at a mall in Toronto a few months back. She wrote a blog on that experience:
Except:
Quote
I can't get this odd feeling out of my chest. This empty, almost sickening feeling won't go away. I noticed this feeling when I was in the Eaton Center in Toronto just seconds before someone opened fire in the food court. An odd feeling which led me to go outside and unknowingly out of harm's way. It's hard for me to wrap my mind around how a weird feeling saved me from being in the middle of a deadly shooting.
What started off as a trip to the mall to get sushi and shop, ended up as a day that has forever changed my life. I was on a mission to eat sushi that day, and when I'm on a mission, nothing will deter me. When I arrived at the Eaton Center mall, I walked down to the food court and spotted a sushi restaurant. Instead of walking in, sitting down and enjoying sushi, I changed my mind, which is very unlike me, and decided that a greasy burger and poutine would do the trick. I rushed through my dinner. I found out after seeing a map of the scene, that minutes later a man was standing in the same spot I just ate at and opened fire in the food court full of people. Had I had sushi, I would've been in the same place where one of the victims was found.
Quote from: stjaba on July 20, 2012, 09:53:41 AM
The creepy part? Apparently, she narrowly avoided a mass shooting at a mall in Toronto a few months back. She wrote a blog on that experience:
You can only dodge so many mass shootings in life, man.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 20, 2012, 09:58:07 AM
Quote from: stjaba on July 20, 2012, 09:53:41 AM
The creepy part? Apparently, she narrowly avoided a mass shooting at a mall in Toronto a few months back. She wrote a blog on that experience:
You can only dodge so many mass shootings in life, man.
Many people don't come across mass shootings...
Seems like there might be a serious bomb inside that building. They've evacuated the five nearest apartments, fire crews have run houses and a hazmat team just showed up.
The next gimmick after 3-D? :hmm:
Quote from: stjaba on July 20, 2012, 08:25:37 AM
Apparently, there was a 3 month year old there. :hmm:
Hopefully the parents were killed. Bringing a baby to a movie, and a midnight showing of a non-kids movie no less, is probably what set the shooter off.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 20, 2012, 07:56:03 AM
Interesting how he gave himself up in the parking lot; usually mass shooting goofs don't allow themselves to be captured alive.
Did he have a fake Michigan ID?
Let's not be so quick to judge the shooter. He was facing a crowd of hoodie wearing teenagers. Many of them were eating Skittles.
Quote from: Malthus on July 20, 2012, 10:46:09 AM
Let's not be so quick to judge the shooter. He was facing a crowd of hoodie wearing teenagers. Many of them were eating Skittles.
He liked black people. :)
Some of his best friends were black?
Quote from: Tamas on July 20, 2012, 10:57:36 AM
Some of his best friends were black?
Don't be racist. :angry:
Apparently he was pursuing a postgraduate degree in neuroscience.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 20, 2012, 11:05:00 AM
Apparently he was pursuing a postgraduate degree in neuroscience.
So, education wasnt a factor.
Quote from: 11B4V on July 20, 2012, 11:26:10 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 20, 2012, 11:05:00 AM
Apparently he was pursuing a postgraduate degree in neuroscience.
So, education wasnt a factor.
Talk radio this morning also said that people with lots of education were usually pretty stupid and liberal.
No. Not making it up.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on July 20, 2012, 11:27:25 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on July 20, 2012, 11:26:10 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 20, 2012, 11:05:00 AM
Apparently he was pursuing a postgraduate degree in neuroscience.
So, education wasnt a factor.
Talk radio this morning also said that people with lots of education were usually pretty stupid and liberal.
No. Not making it up.
So that would be Grumblers problem?
:lol:
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on July 20, 2012, 11:27:25 AM
Talk radio this morning also said that people with lots of education were usually pretty stupid and liberal.
No. Not making it up.
That sounds like something Siege would say. I think he gets all his talking points from Talk Radio.
Looks like ABC felt like they hit the jackpot when they had someone look through the local Tea Party organization's membership list and found a "Jim Holmes". Too bad for them it turned out to be a different guy :(
OK, watched both Obama's and Romney's public statements.
Obama: Day of national mourning, prayer and reflection
Mittenses: 12 more souls for baptism
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on July 20, 2012, 11:27:25 AM
Talk radio this morning also said that people with lots of education were usually pretty stupid and liberal.
No. Not making it up.
Howie Carr? :)
So apparently one of the victims was at the scene of another mass shooting, one in Toronto, not long ago
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/07/20/aspiring-sportscaster-jessica-ghawi-killed-in-colorado-shooting-narrowly-missed-toronto-eaton-centre-gunfire/
Glad to see J isn't afraid to repeat items already reported in a 4 page thread.
Quote from: garbon on July 20, 2012, 12:06:00 PM
Glad to see J isn't afraid to repeat items already reported in a 4 page thread.
:blush:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 20, 2012, 11:05:00 AM
Apparently he was pursuing a postgraduate degree in neuroscience.
Oh I see, another useless graduate student. Probably a liberal too. :)
Quote from: derspiess on July 20, 2012, 09:45:20 AM
Quote from: Barrister on July 20, 2012, 09:38:22 AM
In my experience babies (in particular young babies) are actually pretty easy to take out to events. They don't need much attention, just feed them when appropriate. They are much easier to take places than my 2 year old is.
That's not my experience. When Tommy was two he'd sit and watch most of the game. He could walk, so I didn't have to carry him 100% of the time. And like I said, this was August (which is hot down here) and at a baseball game, in a seating area where you'd expect foul balls.
I thought about trying to take Timmy to the CFL (Bombers / Esks) game last weekend, but realized there is no way on earth he'd sit still that long. :(
Quote from: Caliga on July 20, 2012, 12:10:29 PM
Oh I see, another useless graduate student. Probably a liberal too. :)
Thanks Siege :P
Quote from: Valmy on July 20, 2012, 12:13:36 PM
Quote from: Caliga on July 20, 2012, 12:10:29 PM
Oh I see, another useless graduate student. Probably a liberal too. :)
Thanks Siege :P
Well ABC sure thought they had something special. There's a guy names Jim Holmes who is a registered Tea Party member. Turns out it wasn't the shooter though!
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic4.businessinsider.com%2Fimage%2F500991daecad04db76000001%2Fimage.jpg&hash=62df92d016e3840f7ce549eb71674fc50b7a7749)
Quote from: Barrister on July 20, 2012, 12:11:28 PM
I thought about trying to take Timmy to the CFL (Bombers / Esks) game last weekend, but realized there is no way on earth he'd sit still that long. :(
If you go into it with low enough expectations, I bet you'll have a good time. If he's never been to a big sporting event, he'll surely get a kick out of it. What helped with Tommy is that he was slightly stunned by seeing so many people in one place, so that kinda helped him stay in his seat (or on my lap for a good part of the time). Nowadays he lasts about 3 or 4 innings and then wants to go to the kids area.
He's been a little better at football games, but he's usually with his cousins. He doesn't seem to be that much into basketball games, but at hockey games there's usually enough going on to keep his interest the whole time-- particularly if I time the snacks well enough.
What are ticket prices like for CFL games? If they're high enough I might agree with you & say it's not worth the risk.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 20, 2012, 12:16:03 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic4.businessinsider.com%2Fimage%2F500991daecad04db76000001%2Fimage.jpg&hash=62df92d016e3840f7ce549eb71674fc50b7a7749)
Apparently Kelly has upped the police presence around theaters in NYC today.
Quote from: Caliga on July 20, 2012, 11:51:50 AM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on July 20, 2012, 11:27:25 AM
Talk radio this morning also said that people with lots of education were usually pretty stupid and liberal.
No. Not making it up.
Howie Carr? :)
Nah, he is afternoon drive guy. This was some cretin and his guest, who is probably some under-educated professor from the Heritage Foundation or some silly ass think tank.
Quote from: derspiess on July 20, 2012, 12:19:13 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 20, 2012, 12:11:28 PM
I thought about trying to take Timmy to the CFL (Bombers / Esks) game last weekend, but realized there is no way on earth he'd sit still that long. :(
If you go into it with low enough expectations, I bet you'll have a good time. If he's never been to a big sporting event, he'll surely get a kick out of it. What helped with Tommy is that he was slightly stunned by seeing so many people in one place, so that kinda helped him stay in his seat (or on my lap for a good part of the time). Nowadays he lasts about 3 or 4 innings and then wants to go to the kids area.
He's been a little better at football games, but he's usually with his cousins. He doesn't seem to be that much into basketball games, but at hockey games there's usually enough going on to keep his interest the whole time-- particularly if I time the snacks well enough.
What are ticket prices like for CFL games? If they're high enough I might agree with you & say it's not worth the risk.
Prices are very reasonable. I could sign him up for their kdis club and he'd get in for $9 (adults for $27), or could go to a family general admission seating for $22 each.
I might give it a shot at some point this summer - it could be something the two of us do. If you're in a family section I guess they have to expect kids to be running around part of the time anyways.
NHL on the other hand, isn't going to happen for a long time. Plus, while I don't mind if he becomes an Esks fan, I'm going to fight the Oilers influence till my dying breath. :ph34r:
Also mentinoed this morning was the Bane - Bain - Romney connection.
Quote from: Barrister on July 20, 2012, 12:29:37 PM
NHL on the other hand, isn't going to happen for a long time. Plus, while I don't mind if he becomes an Esks fan, I'm going to fight the Oilers influence till my dying breath. :ph34r:
I know what you mean. I'm risking Tommy becoming a Reds fan (not the end of the world but I'd like to 'raise him as a Cardinals fan' if possible) with each Reds game I take him to, which is about 6 or 7 per season. He likes to clap when everyone else does, and gets confused when the Cardinals are playing and nobody claps for them. What I have going for me is a Cards vs. Reds rivalry brewing between him and his cousin.
He'll stay in my good graces as long as he never asks me for Cubs or Steelers gear.
A more armed citizenry could have prevented this tragedy. We need to loosen gun laws.
The suspect was a recent PhD student. We need to defund universities.
Quote from: derspiess on July 20, 2012, 12:36:11 PM
I know what you mean. I'm risking Tommy becoming a Reds fan (not the end of the world but I'd like to 'raise him as a Cardinals fan' if possible) with each Reds game I take him to, which is about 6 or 7 per season. He likes to clap when everyone else does, and gets confused when the Cardinals are playing and nobody claps for them. What I have going for me is a Cards vs. Reds rivalry brewing between him and his cousin.
He'll stay in my good graces as long as he never asks me for Cubs or Steelers gear.
Surely he won't be a baseball fan, will he? This is the 21st century.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 20, 2012, 12:16:03 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic4.businessinsider.com%2Fimage%2F500991daecad04db76000001%2Fimage.jpg&hash=62df92d016e3840f7ce549eb71674fc50b7a7749)
#Breaking: Gothahm PD Comissioner Gordon says CO Suspect Joker ....
too early? Yeah, probably...
Quote from: Neil on July 20, 2012, 01:17:12 PM
Surely he won't be a baseball fan, will he? This is the 21st century.
The Century of Baseball!
It's time for them to invent some new popular sports, all the current ones have been around since the 19th century at least.
Quote from: Valmy on July 20, 2012, 01:32:10 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 20, 2012, 01:17:12 PM
Surely he won't be a baseball fan, will he? This is the 21st century.
The Century of Baseball!
Wasn't the century of baseball 1880-1980?
Quote from: Neil on July 20, 2012, 01:43:25 PM
Wasn't the century of baseball 1880-1980?
That was just a prologue to the greatest century the sport has ever experienced. Baseball shall take the world by storm.
And besides that it was 1870-1970.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 20, 2012, 01:41:30 PM
It's time for them to invent some new popular sports, all the current ones have been around since the 19th century at least.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2Fthumb%2Ff%2Ff8%2FVarious_Artists_-_BASEketball_Original_Motion_Picture_Soundtrack.jpg%2F220px-Various_Artists_-_BASEketball_Original_Motion_Picture_Soundtrack.jpg&hash=9d73ae4c384ec5b363d4ce5aee286640afe4121c)
With all the concussion lawsuits coming I think flag football will soon be our #1 sport.
What this does have in common with the Utøya shooting (anniversary in two days) is that the victims have very limited opportunity to escape. The theatre does have fire exits while utøya didn't, but they are choke points. You are many orders of magnitude times more likely to be killed in a theater fire than a theater shooting, but I think future theaters will be built with that expectation.
Quote from: Valmy on July 20, 2012, 01:45:34 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 20, 2012, 01:43:25 PM
Wasn't the century of baseball 1880-1980?
That was just a prologue to the greatest century the sport has ever experienced. Baseball shall take the world by storm.
And besides that it was 1870-1970.
Surely the "century of baseball" has got to include 1985. :contract:
'86. I actually ordered an '86 Mets replica jersey today. :)
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 20, 2012, 01:41:30 PM
It's time for them to invent some new popular sports, all the current ones have been around since the 19th century at least.
Blernsball's day will come. :yes:
Quote from: Syt on July 20, 2012, 01:56:25 PM
'86. I actually ordered an '86 Mets replica jersey today. :)
Thinking about it - the century of baseball almost certainly ended in 1991. :)
Quote from: Barrister on July 20, 2012, 02:00:10 PM
Thinking about it - the century of baseball almost certainly ended in 1991. :)
No way the century of Baseball can include the DH :angry:
Fuck all of you; the century ended when the Curse of the Bambino was broken.
That was the only thing keeping it alive. Everything after: Post-Boston apocalyptic wasteland.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 20, 2012, 02:02:28 PM
Fuck all of you; the century ended when the Curse of the Bambino was broken.
That was the only thing keeping it alive. Everything after: Post-Boston apocalyptic wasteland.
Considering that this was also the last season of the Expos before moving to Washington, you may be onto something.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 20, 2012, 12:16:03 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic4.businessinsider.com%2Fimage%2F500991daecad04db76000001%2Fimage.jpg&hash=62df92d016e3840f7ce549eb71674fc50b7a7749)
But... Doesn't the Joker have
green hair?
Quote from: Viking on July 20, 2012, 01:52:12 PM
What this does have in common with the Utøya shooting (anniversary in two days) is that the victims have very limited opportunity to escape. The theatre does have fire exits while utøya didn't, but they are choke points. You are many orders of magnitude times more likely to be killed in a theater fire than a theater shooting, but I think future theaters will be built with that expectation.
Well the Scandi thing was politically motivated. I'm guessing this guy is just a loon.
Onion writes an actual accurate article.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/sadly-nation-knows-exactly-how-colorado-shootings,28857/
Quote from: Valmy on July 20, 2012, 02:01:12 PM
No way the century of Baseball can include the DH :angry:
:mad: The DH makes the game better.
Quote from: Viking on July 20, 2012, 01:52:12 PM
What this does have in common with the Utøya shooting (anniversary in two days) is that the victims have very limited opportunity to escape. The theatre does have fire exits while utøya didn't, but they are choke points. You are many orders of magnitude times more likely to be killed in a theater fire than a theater shooting, but I think future theaters will be built with that expectation.
Perhaps someone was shouting "fire" in the crowded theatre and the gunner misinterpreted that? :hmm:
Quote from: Martinus on July 20, 2012, 04:54:11 PM
Quote from: Viking on July 20, 2012, 01:52:12 PM
What this does have in common with the Utøya shooting (anniversary in two days) is that the victims have very limited opportunity to escape. The theatre does have fire exits while utøya didn't, but they are choke points. You are many orders of magnitude times more likely to be killed in a theater fire than a theater shooting, but I think future theaters will be built with that expectation.
Perhaps someone was shouting "fire" in the crowded theatre and the gunner misinterpreted that? :hmm:
:lol:
Pretty much sums up the current state of the gun control debate in America.
QuoteRep. Gohmert: Did No One Else in Aurora Theater Have a Gun?
The shooting could have been limited if someone else in the Aurora, Colo., movie theater had been carrying a gun, Texas Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert said today.
Gohmert reacted to the shooting, which left 12 dead, during an interview this morning on the radio program Ernest Istook Live! From The Heritage Foundation.
"Well it does make me wonder, you know with all those people in the theater, was there nobody that was carrying that could've stopped this guy more quickly?" Gohmert said. "I mean in Tyler, Texas, we had–my hometown–we had a shooter come in over a domestic matter, and just start shooting people. And it was a guy with a concealed carry–he got killed, but his shooting at this guy caused him to run and no doubt saved a lot of lives. He was a real hero."
Colorado allows residents to obtain concealed carry permits, according to the Colorado State Patrol website.
"I know that before we ever had concealed carry in Texas, there was a, just a senseless shooting years ago in Killeen, Texas, in a restaurant, and, you know, if we had had concealed carry permits at the time, there was a woman who had to leave her gun in her car, and if we'd had concealed carry the guy would've been stopped before he could've killed so many people," Gohmert said.
Radio host Ernest Istook asked Gohmert, a former judge, for his opinion on "the way that we have too many twisted minds in our society." Gohmert blamed the deterioration of Judeo-Christian values, citing cases in which public expressions of religion have been stifled.
"What really gets me as a Christian is to see the ongoing attacks on Judeo-Christian beliefs, and then some senseless crazy act of terror like this takes place," Gohmert said.
"When people say, 'You say there's a God, where is god in all of this?' Well, you know, we don't let–in fact we've threatened high school graduation participants that if they use God's name that they're going to be jailed," Gohmert said. "'Where is God?' Well, what have we done with God? We've told him we don't want him around. And I kind of like his protective hand being present."
More guns. More God.
Quote from: Syt on July 20, 2012, 04:41:42 AM
They were probably driven to do it by Rush Limbaugh.
Wow, that was fast.
What else?
The dude was a Tea Party member, perhaps?
Quote from: Neil on July 20, 2012, 07:53:15 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 20, 2012, 07:50:35 AM
This is what happens when a society tolerates guns.
FYP
I always knew you were a fucking liberal, behind all your cool guy camoflage.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 20, 2012, 09:21:41 AM
3 month old baby is the youngest victim, in fair condition. :(
Dude used tear gas. How hard is that to get for civilians.
I can make tear gas in my kitchen, and I can make a silencer in Home depot.
Quote from: Siege on July 20, 2012, 06:59:17 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 20, 2012, 07:53:15 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 20, 2012, 07:50:35 AM
This is what happens when a society tolerates guns.
FYP
I always knew you were a fucking liberal, behind all your cool guy camoflage.
I always knew he was a Canadian, never noticed this camouflage however.
I've seen some idiots post on facebook that the massacre would have been stopped if a member of the audience had a gun.
I gotta say I disagree. I would bet my money on the individual wearing body armor, armed with an assault rifle, and wearing a gas mask after having fired tear gas.
Quote from: stjaba on July 20, 2012, 07:11:34 PM
I've seen some idiots post on facebook that the massacre would have been stopped if a member of the audience had a gun.
I gotta say I disagree. I would bet my money on the individual wearing body armor, armed with an assault rifle, and wearing a gas mask after having fired tear gas.
But they've all had 100 hours of practice on Call of Duty. :lol:
My roommate owns a tricked out AR-15. What the hell is the point of that gun except for fighting an armed insurrection against the government or committing mass murder?
Quote from: stjaba on July 20, 2012, 07:11:34 PM
I've seen some idiots post on facebook that the massacre would have been stopped if a member of the audience had a gun.
I gotta say I disagree. I would bet my money on the individual wearing body armor, armed with an assault rifle, and wearing a gas mask after having fired tear gas.
You are wrong.
The dude in body armor have a shitload of targets, the dude with a handgun just need to hold his breath, keep his cool, and walk to the shooter and shoot him in the face. Walking through the bullets work every time against untrained bad guys, despite of what you might think.
Quote from: Fate on July 20, 2012, 07:12:48 PM
Quote from: stjaba on July 20, 2012, 07:11:34 PM
I've seen some idiots post on facebook that the massacre would have been stopped if a member of the audience had a gun.
I gotta say I disagree. I would bet my money on the individual wearing body armor, armed with an assault rifle, and wearing a gas mask after having fired tear gas.
But they've all had 100 hours of practice on Call of Duty. :lol:
My roommate owns a tricked out AR-15. What the hell is the point of that gun except for fighting an armed insurrection against the government or committing mass murder?
If you can't understand the point of owning guns, then don't.
It is not mandatory.
The fact that you cannot understand, doesn't mean there is something wrong with owning guns.
Quote from: Siege on July 20, 2012, 07:20:23 PM
You are wrong.
The dude in body armor have a shitload of targets, the dude with a handgun just need to hold his breath, keep his cool, and walk to the shooter and shoot him in the face. Walking through the bullets work every time against untrained bad guys, despite of what you might think.
You think that it is realistic that someone could do that while incapacitated with tear gas in a dark room?
Quote from: Siege on July 20, 2012, 07:22:40 PM
Quote from: Fate on July 20, 2012, 07:12:48 PM
Quote from: stjaba on July 20, 2012, 07:11:34 PM
I've seen some idiots post on facebook that the massacre would have been stopped if a member of the audience had a gun.
I gotta say I disagree. I would bet my money on the individual wearing body armor, armed with an assault rifle, and wearing a gas mask after having fired tear gas.
But they've all had 100 hours of practice on Call of Duty. :lol:
My roommate owns a tricked out AR-15. What the hell is the point of that gun except for fighting an armed insurrection against the government or committing mass murder?
If you can't understand the point of owning guns, then don't.
It is not mandatory.
The fact that you cannot understand, doesn't mean there is something wrong with owning guns.
I have no clue what you're trying to say. Can you please rephrase it in English?
We've missed you all day, Siegy. 8 pages before you debut your batshitness? You're slipping, soldier.
Quote from: Fate on July 20, 2012, 07:12:48 PM
Quote from: stjaba on July 20, 2012, 07:11:34 PM
I've seen some idiots post on facebook that the massacre would have been stopped if a member of the audience had a gun.
I gotta say I disagree. I would bet my money on the individual wearing body armor, armed with an assault rifle, and wearing a gas mask after having fired tear gas.
But they've all had 100 hours of practice on Call of Duty. :lol:
My roommate owns a tricked out AR-15. What the hell is the point of that gun except for fighting an armed insurrection against the government or committing mass murder?
How :tinfoil: is your roommate? Maybe he's afraid of alien abductions or the zombie apocalypse.
Might be useful in a stampede of bison as well.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 20, 2012, 07:24:51 PM
We've missed you all day, Siegy. 8 pages before you debut your batshitness? You're slipping, soldier.
I work for a living, you fag.
Quote from: Siege on July 20, 2012, 07:32:59 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 20, 2012, 07:24:51 PM
We've missed you all day, Siegy. 8 pages before you debut your batshitness? You're slipping, soldier.
I work for a living, you fag.
No, you're in the Army. Marines work for a living.
Quote from: stjaba on July 20, 2012, 07:23:12 PM
Quote from: Siege on July 20, 2012, 07:20:23 PM
You are wrong.
The dude in body armor have a shitload of targets, the dude with a handgun just need to hold his breath, keep his cool, and walk to the shooter and shoot him in the face. Walking through the bullets work every time against untrained bad guys, despite of what you might think.
You think that it is realistic that someone could do that while incapacitated with tear gas in a dark room?
I particularly like the part where Siege does not understand the mechanism by which tear gas functions.
Quote"When people say, 'You say there's a God, where is god in all of this?' Well, you know, we don't let–in fact we've threatened high school graduation participants that if they use God's name that they're going to be jailed," Gohmert said. "'Where is God?' Well, what have we done with God? We've told him we don't want him around. And I kind of like his protective hand being present."
You know what bothers me so much about the "persecuted Christian" is that they just make up the most unbelievably malign shit to bolster their arguments. Lying is a sin; you can read more about it in the BIBLE.
Quote from: stjaba on July 20, 2012, 07:23:12 PM
Quote from: Siege on July 20, 2012, 07:20:23 PM
You are wrong.
The dude in body armor have a shitload of targets, the dude with a handgun just need to hold his breath, keep his cool, and walk to the shooter and shoot him in the face. Walking through the bullets work every time against untrained bad guys, despite of what you might think.
You think that it is realistic that someone could do that while incapacitated with tear gas in a dark room?
Dude, in basic training, and I mean BASIC, the first fucking month in the Army, you get put in a dark room, no gas mask, some asshole Drill Sergeant drops a couple canisters of tear gas, and you have to hold for what seems like forever. Then you are allow to put your mask on, breathe out the gas inside the mask, and then when you have you mask on correctly, all gas out of your mask, then you are allow to walk out of the room.
And that ain't nothing. I have accurately fired my weapon and taken out the enemy right after being blown the fuck out, almost blind, definitively deaf, and totally disoriented. If my old lousy ass can do it, you can be sure any highspeed 20 year old with the proper military training can do it. Like I always tell my boys, keep your cool, that's the single most important thing in a firefight, to keep it together. If you can think straight, you can shoot straight.
I think it's utterly adorable that Siegy believes a Soccer Mom with a .380 in her purse or Caliga would be able to successfully engage a suspect within the context of this scenario as well as "any highspeed 20 year old with the proper military training".
Quote from: Ideologue on July 20, 2012, 07:37:17 PM
Quote from: stjaba on July 20, 2012, 07:23:12 PM
Quote from: Siege on July 20, 2012, 07:20:23 PM
You are wrong.
The dude in body armor have a shitload of targets, the dude with a handgun just need to hold his breath, keep his cool, and walk to the shooter and shoot him in the face. Walking through the bullets work every time against untrained bad guys, despite of what you might think.
You think that it is realistic that someone could do that while incapacitated with tear gas in a dark room?
I particularly like the part where Siege does not understand the mechanism by which tear gas functions.
You can see with tear gas. And if you hold your breath, the speed at which the gas enter your body diminish, as well as the effects.
If you breathe it in all full, you are done.
Easy trick: spit on the neck of your shirt, and cover your mouth and nose with the wet neck.
Can you spit this much? :P
I carry my gasmask everywhere since UC Davis.
Yeah. That's the reason. It's certainly not a sexual thing. :shifty:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 20, 2012, 07:47:56 PM
I think it's utterly adorable that Siegy believes a Soccer Mom with a .380 in her purse or Caliga would be able to successfully engage a suspect within the context of this scenario as well as "any highspeed 20 year old with the proper military training".
Well, if you own a gun, you are suppossed to have at least a minimum training.
Shoot the fucker with the big gun shooting randomly!!!
Besides, gas doens't move that fast. I bet the stampede moved faster than the gas.
Quote from: Siege on July 20, 2012, 07:54:48 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 20, 2012, 07:47:56 PM
I think it's utterly adorable that Siegy believes a Soccer Mom with a .380 in her purse or Caliga would be able to successfully engage a suspect within the context of this scenario as well as "any highspeed 20 year old with the proper military training".
Well, if you own a gun, you are suppossed to have at least a minimum training.
Shoot the fucker with the big gun shooting randomly!!!
Doesn't work that way, and you know it.
Siege is dumber than a bag of bricks.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 20, 2012, 07:57:22 PM
Quote from: Siege on July 20, 2012, 07:54:48 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 20, 2012, 07:47:56 PM
I think it's utterly adorable that Siegy believes a Soccer Mom with a .380 in her purse or Caliga would be able to successfully engage a suspect within the context of this scenario as well as "any highspeed 20 year old with the proper military training".
Well, if you own a gun, you are suppossed to have at least a minimum training.
Shoot the fucker with the big gun shooting randomly!!!
Doesn't work that way, and you know it.
Yeah well, there are plenty of ranges around to train.
Though I get your point.
My wife would have certainly frozen in place, the gun forgotten in her purse.
Then she would have run, the purse forgotten at her seat.
Quote from: katmai on July 20, 2012, 07:58:08 PM
Siege is dumber than a bag of bricks.
And very proud.
Got to go.
Shabbat about to start.
Quote from: katmai on July 20, 2012, 07:58:08 PM
Siege is dumber than a bag of bricks.
Ironically enough, I think I'd trust Siegy with a bag of bricks in that theater. :ph34r:
I wouldn't trust siege anywhere.
Quote from: katmai on July 20, 2012, 08:06:06 PM
I wouldn't trust siege anywhere.
He's kinda like Blaster. Just stay on top of him, and he's good. Then, when it's time to go Thunderdome, you let 'em go.
:(
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fi1jlo.jpg&hash=8522550c5073ff1780b244f6a55a8ac0b90ff496)
Is this the same Canadian who almost took one in Toronto, or was there some sort of Canadian convention going on in Aurora?
Yes, same one.
There have been several news reports that extremely loud music began playing at the suspect's apartment at 12:00 AM and ceased almost immediately at 1:00 AM. I wonder if that was supposed to be some sort of distraction. Maybe he figured one of the neighbors would call the cops, who would enter the apartment and thereby set off his booby trap explosives.
Quote from: stjaba on July 20, 2012, 08:52:23 PM
There have been several news reports that extremely loud music began playing at the suspect's apartment at 12:00 AM and ceased almost immediately at 1:00 AM. I wonder if that was supposed to be some sort of distraction. Maybe he figured one of the neighbors would call the cops, who would enter the apartment and thereby set off his booby trap explosives.
Yeah, I heard that on the news, and the speculation is that getting someone to enter his apartment and trigger a booby trap was part of his plan.
Cops are there now trying to find and disarm traps in the apartment. I say to force the puke to go in first and trigger the traps. If they have trouble getting him to go in tie him up and put him on top of a bomb sniffing robot and send it in.
Some of the stories coming out of this are heart breaking. Kids killed or badly wounded, so many killed. One teen talked of tripping over a couple of bodies on his way out. Another teen said she saw a young girl stagger out with several wounds, and she thought the kid was dying right there.
There is nothing nasty enough that can be done to that little puke shooter. What a sick piece of human garbage he is. Kind of glad they took him alive, so he can suffer with what he's done. Because after the adrenaline wears off he's going to realize what a monster he is. And if he does feel he's too cool or heroic to have feeling for what he did, oh well, he'll be locked up for the rest of his life and can stew on being a prisoner, often in solitaire.
Quote from: katmai on July 20, 2012, 07:58:08 PM
Siege is dumber than a bag of bricks.
They probably pumped his head full of bullets in the second month of basic training. He didn't get the hint when they locked him away in a room and pumped it full of tear gas.
Quote from: Fate on July 20, 2012, 07:12:48 PM
Quote from: stjaba on July 20, 2012, 07:11:34 PM
I've seen some idiots post on facebook that the massacre would have been stopped if a member of the audience had a gun.
I gotta say I disagree. I would bet my money on the individual wearing body armor, armed with an assault rifle, and wearing a gas mask after having fired tear gas.
But they've all had 100 hours of practice on Call of Duty. :lol:
My roommate owns a tricked out AR-15. What the hell is the point of that gun except for fighting an armed insurrection against the government or committing mass murder?
Realistically speaking, though, my guess is that AR-15s don't cause nearly as many senseless deaths as handguns. Handguns may not bag as high a count when you decide to go on a rampage, but all those 7-11 clerks add up. I imagine a big-ass gun is not nearly as useful when you want to stick up a place.
:)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/20/jarell-brooks-aurora-hero_n_1690579.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003
Quote from: DGuller on July 20, 2012, 09:13:35 PM
Realistically speaking, though, my guess is that AR-15s don't cause nearly as many senseless deaths as handguns. Handguns may not bag as high a count when you decide to go on a rampage, but all those 7-11 clerks add up. I imagine a big-ass gun is not nearly as useful when you want to stick up a place.
Works fine if you come in hot.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 20, 2012, 09:56:59 PM
:)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/20/jarell-brooks-aurora-hero_n_1690579.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003
Nice, good going.
Wow, this could have been a lot worse! :wacko:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57476379/mass-shooting-at-batman-screening-in-aurora-colo.-12-dead-dozens-more-wounded/?tag=stack
QuoteCBS News has learned that some loud music blaring from Holmes' apartment around the time of the attack allegedly was designed to draw a noise complaint from a neighbor, thus luring police into his residence, sparking a firebomb and diverting resources from the movie theater.
Quote from: Fate on July 20, 2012, 07:12:48 PM
Quote from: stjaba on July 20, 2012, 07:11:34 PM
I've seen some idiots post on facebook that the massacre would have been stopped if a member of the audience had a gun.
I gotta say I disagree. I would bet my money on the individual wearing body armor, armed with an assault rifle, and wearing a gas mask after having fired tear gas.
But they've all had 100 hours of practice on Call of Duty. :lol:
My roommate owns a tricked out AR-15. What the hell is the point of that gun except for fighting an armed insurrection against the government or committing mass murder?
I shoot targets with mine. A lot of people do competition shooting with them. But thankfully I don't need to justify it with you :)
Yeah, the only purpose of handguns is to commit murder.
Quote from: Barrister on July 20, 2012, 02:00:10 PM
Quote from: Syt on July 20, 2012, 01:56:25 PM
'86. I actually ordered an '86 Mets replica jersey today. :)
Thinking about it - the century of baseball almost certainly ended in 1991. :)
1994 - Baseball Strike
That's when I completely shut my mind to baseball. I was done. Had been a Mets fan my entire life, but I haven't seen a pro game since.
By the way, baseball's going nowhere.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fe%2Fe9%2FMLB_attendance_vs_population.png&hash=72c8851e3df5a85885f047c23e0341c7a3793bde)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.redial.net%2FMLB-ATTENDANCE-2009.png&hash=fce514568a9663864bc5be7da38f1104d439b102)
That's pretty low considering that MLB teams play about 63,000 games every year.
The Dodgers are at the top? Guess it comes from not having football. :hmm:
Quote from: merithyn on July 20, 2012, 11:09:45 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 20, 2012, 02:00:10 PM
Quote from: Syt on July 20, 2012, 01:56:25 PM
'86. I actually ordered an '86 Mets replica jersey today. :)
Thinking about it - the century of baseball almost certainly ended in 1991. :)
1994 - Baseball Strike
That's when I completely shut my mind to baseball. I was done. Had been a Mets fan my entire life, but I haven't seen a pro game since.
They got a good Al Bundy double episode out of the strike, though, with the National titty bar league. What was his team? The Chicago D-Cups?
Quote from: merithyn on July 20, 2012, 11:09:45 PM
1994 - Baseball Strike
That's when I completely shut my mind to baseball. I was done. Had been a Mets fan my entire life, but I haven't seen a pro game since.
Did you do the same to the NBA and the NHL and the NFL when they had their strikes?
Quote from: Neil on July 20, 2012, 11:19:29 PM
That's pretty low considering that MLB teams play about 63,000 games every year.
Which is why they play that many games and the reason the NHL and NBA seasons are about 63,000 months long.
Quote from: Valmy on July 21, 2012, 12:01:57 AM
Did you do the same to the NBA and the NHL and the NFL when they had their strikes?
The 1994 MLB strike was different. First, it was the second such strike in four years. Second, they whined about making too little cash for a sport that isn't really a sport to begin with. I've PLAYED baseball, basketball, and football. Baseball is NOT the same level of physical endurance as NBA, NHL and NFL. Christ, if you can be 50 pounds overweight and still play the game, I'm sorry, but don't even try to compare yourselves to real athletes. It's not even close. So when these whiny-ass bitches go off about not making enough - as if $5mil isn't enough - for the second time in four year for a sport that isn't really a sport... yeah, not so much.
Mind you, I grew up a HUGE baseball fan. I LOVED baseball and went to pro games whenever and wherever I could. But I also recognize the limitations of the game, and the limitations of the players. The strike in 1994 pulled the rug out from under me forever on the sport. I still watch minor league games whenever I can, but I'm done with the Majors.
Quote from: merithyn on July 21, 2012, 12:24:21 AM
Quote from: Valmy on July 21, 2012, 12:01:57 AM
Did you do the same to the NBA and the NHL and the NFL when they had their strikes?
The 1994 MLB strike was different. First, it was the second such strike in four years. Second, they whined about making too little cash for a sport that isn't really a sport to begin with. I've PLAYED baseball, basketball, and football. Baseball is NOT the same level of physical endurance as NBA, NHL and NFL. Christ, if you can be 50 pounds overweight and still play the game, I'm sorry, but don't even try to compare yourselves to real athletes. It's not even close. So when these whiny-ass bitches go off about not making enough - as if $5mil isn't enough - for the second time in four year for a sport that isn't really a sport... yeah, not so much.
Mind you, I grew up a HUGE baseball fan. I LOVED baseball and went to pro games whenever and wherever I could. But I also recognize the limitations of the game, and the limitations of the players. The strike in 1994 pulled the rug out from under me forever on the sport. I still watch minor league games whenever I can, but I'm done with the Majors.
Lifting huge boulders over your head takes lots of endurance I guess by your defintion that is the greatest sport of them all. Caber tossing?
And um 395 pound linemen are not fifty pounds overweight? I guess it is normal to weigh that much?
And it was almost twenty years ago most of those guys you think are whiny bitches are no longer playing but I guess everybody who plays the game for all time is guilty by association? I mean in a year or two we are going to have major leaguers who were BORN in 1994.
And if you are watching Minor League baseball why did you say you are done with baseball? Last I checked they play baseball in the minor leagues. And why did you say you have not seen a pro game since? It would be really upsetting for those minor leaguers to go get their game checks and be informed they were amateurs this whole time. :P
Quote from: Valmy on July 21, 2012, 12:47:23 AM
Quote from: merithyn on July 21, 2012, 12:24:21 AM
Quote from: Valmy on July 21, 2012, 12:01:57 AM
Did you do the same to the NBA and the NHL and the NFL when they had their strikes?
The 1994 MLB strike was different. First, it was the second such strike in four years. Second, they whined about making too little cash for a sport that isn't really a sport to begin with. I've PLAYED baseball, basketball, and football. Baseball is NOT the same level of physical endurance as NBA, NHL and NFL. Christ, if you can be 50 pounds overweight and still play the game, I'm sorry, but don't even try to compare yourselves to real athletes. It's not even close. So when these whiny-ass bitches go off about not making enough - as if $5mil isn't enough - for the second time in four year for a sport that isn't really a sport... yeah, not so much.
Mind you, I grew up a HUGE baseball fan. I LOVED baseball and went to pro games whenever and wherever I could. But I also recognize the limitations of the game, and the limitations of the players. The strike in 1994 pulled the rug out from under me forever on the sport. I still watch minor league games whenever I can, but I'm done with the Majors.
Lifting huge boulders over your head takes lots of endurance I guess by your defintion that is the greatest sport of them all. Caber tossing?
And um 395 pound linemen are not fifty pounds overweight? I guess it is normal to weigh that much?
And it was almost twenty years ago most of those guys you think are whiny bitches are no longer playing but I guess everybody who plays the game for all time is guilty by association? I mean in a year or two we are going to have major leaguers who were BORN in 1994.
And if you are watching Minor League baseball why did you say you are done with baseball? Last I checked they play baseball in the minor leagues. And why did you say you have not seen a pro game since? It would be really upsetting for those minor leaguers to go get their game checks and be informed they were amateurs this whole time. :P
I don't specifically blame 1994.
But some time in the mid-90s, MLB took the path less travelled in professional sport - we don't care about competitive balance. Big money is indeed allowed to dominate.
Honestly, my love of the Kansas City Royals is my oldest love in professional sports (though not necessarily the deepest). If you go back through the family photographs, there was a span of 8-10 years in the 80s where I was never seen without my Royals hat. And other than curling, it (or at least softball) is the one sport I have continued to play.
I would love to cheer on the Royals. But I need just the slightest hope that the game isn't stacked against thenm.
Anyone who's been watching coverage of this tragedy has likely seen this photo. It seems that his son has been confirmed dead. It was his 27th birthday. :cry:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fl3.yimg.com%2Fbt%2Fapi%2Fres%2F1.2%2FVdqEZO.MBYjhjkvXnkx2pw--%2FYXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Y2g9MjA4MDtjcj0xO2N3PTI3NzU7ZHg9MDtkeT0wO2ZpPXVsY3JvcDtoPTQ3MztxPTg1O3c9NjMw%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Fl.yimg.com%2Fos%2F152%2F2012%2F07%2F20%2FAP221064790430-jpg_145650.jpg&hash=e8a5a2025e7c6b8ebd9aeac60d6d879f42ebcb06)
Quote from: Ideologue on July 20, 2012, 07:53:32 PM
I carry my gasmask everywhere since UC Davis.
Yeah. That's the reason. It's certainly not a sexual thing. :shifty:
You get the right mask and they make a great bong.
Quote from: 11B4V on July 21, 2012, 01:57:32 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on July 20, 2012, 07:53:32 PM
I carry my gasmask everywhere since UC Davis.
Yeah. That's the reason. It's certainly not a sexual thing. :shifty:
You get the right mask and they make a great bong.
Something you know from collecting evidence no doubt, right officer?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 20, 2012, 08:33:55 PM
:(
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fi1jlo.jpg&hash=8522550c5073ff1780b244f6a55a8ac0b90ff496)
Was she a Playmate in her free time?
Also, very sad.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 21, 2012, 01:39:19 AM
Anyone who's been watching coverage of this tragedy has likely seen this photo. It seems that his son has been confirmed dead. It was his 27th birthday. :cry:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fl3.yimg.com%2Fbt%2Fapi%2Fres%2F1.2%2FVdqEZO.MBYjhjkvXnkx2pw--%2FYXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Y2g9MjA4MDtjcj0xO2N3PTI3NzU7ZHg9MDtkeT0wO2ZpPXVsY3JvcDtoPTQ3MztxPTg1O3c9NjMw%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Fl.yimg.com%2Fos%2F152%2F2012%2F07%2F20%2FAP221064790430-jpg_145650.jpg&hash=e8a5a2025e7c6b8ebd9aeac60d6d879f42ebcb06)
Kudos, Tim, for posting the worst kind of emotional pornography under the guise of caring. You make me sick.
Fuck you, ya cunt. Don't tell me what I'm feeling or not!
Quote from: Queequeg on July 21, 2012, 02:21:10 AM
Was she a Playmate in her free time?
Also, very sad.
Sports journalist
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 21, 2012, 02:23:14 AM
Fuck you, ya cunt. Don't tell me what I'm feeling or not!
Pictures of grief-stricken relatives of victims, taken at their most vulnerable, serve no informational or public interest value. Their sole purpose is to titillate while invading someone's privacy and feeding on his or her dignity. They are pornography, pure and simple. If you do not understand that, you little miserable cretin, then I don't know what else to tell you.
I'm sure Tim didn't mean any harm, but it is sickening that journalists think it's ok to take pics like that and publish them.
I don't think it's a good idea to publish those pics.
Quote from: Caliga on July 21, 2012, 05:27:43 AM
I'm sure Tim didn't mean any harm, but it is sickening that journalists think it's ok to take pics like that and publish them.
Part of the problem is that in many cases, the families of the victims actually not only allow it, but encourage it.
Quote from: dps on July 21, 2012, 10:15:47 AM
Part of the problem is that in many cases, the families of the victims actually not only allow it, but encourage it.
link?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 21, 2012, 10:16:43 AM
Quote from: dps on July 21, 2012, 10:15:47 AM
Part of the problem is that in many cases, the families of the victims actually not only allow it, but encourage it.
link?
If Time, Newsweek, and US News & World Report have articles from 1975-1990 archeived online, I'm sure you can find plenty of information about this on those sites.
Quote from: Martinus on July 21, 2012, 02:29:38 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 21, 2012, 02:23:14 AM
Fuck you, ya cunt. Don't tell me what I'm feeling or not!
Pictures of grief-stricken relatives of victims, taken at their most vulnerable, serve no informational or public interest value. Their sole purpose is to titillate while invading someone's privacy and feeding on his or her dignity. They are pornography, pure and simple. If you do not understand that, you little miserable cretin, then I don't know what else to tell you.
A have to agree with you and Cal, it's intrusive emotional porn used to sell newsprint/stores.
Though I don't agree with you attack on Tim; I think sometimes he just doesn't get 'it' just as many of us have blind spots on other issues.
Quote from: merithyn on July 20, 2012, 11:09:45 PM
1994 - Baseball Strike
That's when I completely shut my mind to baseball. I was done. Had been a Mets fan my entire life, but I haven't seen a pro game since.
I did the exact same thing.
Eh, can't really blame the players for wanting more money any more than one can blame the owners for not wanting to give it to them.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 21, 2012, 04:42:24 PM
Eh, can't really blame the players for wanting more money any more than one can blame the owners for not wanting to give it to them.
Someone have one of those pretty graphs that show ticket prices over the years??
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 21, 2012, 04:42:24 PM
Eh, can't really blame the players for wanting more money any more than one can blame the owners for not wanting to give it to them.
Of course not. It's what they do to achieve that goal that's blameworthy.
If you take a huge dump on your customers you should expect some hard feelings.
Quote from: The Brain on July 21, 2012, 05:00:21 PM
If you take a huge dump on your customers you should expect some hard feelings.
They're the league's customers, not the union's. Anyway, the players who went on strike in '94 are nearly all retired now.
Most of them were retarded already in 94.
Quote from: Barrister on July 21, 2012, 01:23:53 AM
But some time in the mid-90s, MLB took the path less travelled in professional sport - we don't care about competitive balance. Big money is indeed allowed to dominate.
The results on the field do not support that idea. And anyway the league with the least competitive balance is the NBA not MLB. Pretty much the only reason to watch is to see if somebody is going to stop the Lakers (and it looked for a second like that might be coming to an end...but no here come the Lakers again).
And high draft picks make a huge difference just like in any other sport. Look what that has done for the Nationals.
Quote from: Valmy on July 21, 2012, 05:57:16 PM
And anyway the league with the least competitive balance is the NBA not MLB.
That's nuts. Any bottom dweller team is one lottery pick away from a dynasty. Look at the Bulls pre-Jordan. Cavs pre-James.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 21, 2012, 06:09:55 PM
Quote from: Valmy on July 21, 2012, 05:57:16 PM
And anyway the league with the least competitive balance is the NBA not MLB.
That's nuts. Any bottom dweller team is one lottery pick away from a dynasty. Look at the Bulls pre-Jordan. Cavs pre-James.
Indeed. The NBA, more than any other, is a hero-driven league. It is the least team-oriented of all the team sports.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 21, 2012, 06:09:55 PM
Quote from: Valmy on July 21, 2012, 05:57:16 PM
And anyway the league with the least competitive balance is the NBA not MLB.
That's nuts. Any bottom dweller team is one lottery pick away from a dynasty. Look at the Bulls pre-Jordan. Cavs pre-James.
Still, the Lakers and Celtics have managed to snap up half the championships between them.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 21, 2012, 06:30:40 PM
Still, the Lakers and Celtics have managed to snap up half the championships between them.
The Lakers have won 31 out of 63 Western Conference titles since they entered the NBA in 1948. Yeah so very balanced.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 21, 2012, 06:09:55 PM
Quote from: Valmy on July 21, 2012, 05:57:16 PM
And anyway the league with the least competitive balance is the NBA not MLB.
That's nuts. Any bottom dweller team is one lottery pick away from a dynasty. Look at the Bulls pre-Jordan. Cavs pre-James.
Of the 26 NBA teams eight have never won a championship. That's nearly a full third of the league! The top 9 teams have won 83.8% of the championships!
Quote from: Valmy on July 21, 2012, 05:57:16 PMAnd anyway the league with the least competitive balance is the NBA not MLB. Pretty much the only reason to watch is to see if somebody is going to stop the Lakers (and it looked for a second like that might be coming to an end...but no here come the Lakers again).
It's plain to see that you don't really follow the NBA, as the Lakers haven't been amongst the 4 best teams for the last 2 seasons.
Quote from: The Larch on July 21, 2012, 07:48:14 PM
It's plain to see that you don't really follow the NBA, as the Lakers haven't been amongst the 4 best teams for the last 2 seasons.
I know and I have enjoyed them merely being among the good teams and not the elite teams for a short while. But judging from the offseason they will be back to form this year.
Quote from: Valmy on July 21, 2012, 07:50:24 PM
Quote from: The Larch on July 21, 2012, 07:48:14 PM
It's plain to see that you don't really follow the NBA, as the Lakers haven't been amongst the 4 best teams for the last 2 seasons.
I know and I have enjoyed them merely being among the good teams and not the elite teams for a short while. But judging from the offseason they will be back to form this year.
That remains to be seen, IMO. Nash is a hall of famer, but already pushing 38 or something. Now, if they got Howard, then they'd be a true powerhouse.
Sounds like this wackjob was pretty competent.
A nice press conference with an FBI agent involved in defusing the bomb can be found here.
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/07/21/12875178-colorado-shooting-suspects-apartment-was-designed-to-kill-police-say?lite
QuoteBy Miranda Leitsinger and Miguel Llanos, NBC News
AURORA, Colo. -- The booby-trapped apartment of mass shooting suspect James Eagan Holmes was "designed to kill," officials said Saturday as they described a complex operation to disarm sophisticated explosives without destroying evidence.
"This was certainly challenging," said FBI agent Jim Yacone, detailing the discovery of the explosive devices and the use of a robot to disarm a trip wire and a primary bomb.
"The threat has not been completely eliminated," Yacone said, while adding that enough progress had been made that "an extensive amount of evidence is in the process of being collected."
Advertise | AdChoices
Aurora Police Chief Dan Oates told reporters that he believed the rigged apartment targeted the police. "We sure as hell are angry," he said.
"This apartment was designed to kill whoever entered it," he said. "Make no mistake about it."
Holmes had received a "high volume of deliveries" over the last four months at home and at school, which would explain how he obtained thousands of rounds of ammunition, Oates said.
He said it could take another day to fully dismantle explosives in the apartment and collect evidence, adding that residents of four neighboring buildings could be allowed to return Saturday night. Residents of the building where Holmes lived might be allowed back on Sunday, he said.
Late Saturday afternoon, authorities removed all hazardous materials found in the apartment to a "remote undisclosed location" outside the city limits for disposal, police told NBC. Most of the items were chemicals that, if mixed together, would cause explosions, they said.
Specialists earlier set off a small, controlled detonation inside the apartment after first disarming a trip wire and incendiary device.
The blast succeeded in disarming a second triggering device, Aurora police Sgt. Cassidee Carlson told reporters.
A siren and shouts of "Fire in the hole" preceded the blast. Live video showed the blast blowing out part of a window, but no smoke or fire resulted.
"The controlled detonation was successful," the Aurora Police Department said in a statement. "Still more work to be done in the apartment to include dealing with other devices. There is a possibility of more controlled detonations."
The 800-square-foot apartment appears to have three types of explosives, a law enforcement source told the Associated Press: jars with accelerants; chemicals that would explode when mixed together; and more than 30 "improvised grenades" that resemble commercially available aerial fireworks shells.
Before the detonation, Carlson announced a trip wire and explosive had been disarmed, saying "we have been successful in defeating the first threat."
She added that "another triggering mechanism" had been found inside, and that was later followed up with the controlled detonation.
"We're going to be very cautious," she added, because "we don't want to lose" any evidence.
Any undetonated explosives will be taken in trucks lined with sand to take the impact of any explosion, she said, adding that some 30 aerial shells are among the items detected inside the apartment on Friday.
Fire trucks surrounded the building on Saturday as a precaution. Some adults and children in nearby buildings not evacuated watched from balconies.
Earlier Saturday, streets around the building were cleared, four neighboring buildings were evacuated and some unattended vehicles were towed away.
Advertise | AdChoices
On Friday, tenants in Holmes' apartment building cleared out, taking with them a few belongings.
The Red Cross said Saturday that 16 evacuees were in one of the agency's shelters.
The building is in a lower-income area about four miles from where the shootings took place during a midnight premiere of the Batman movie "The Dark Knight Rises".
LOL, conservatives. :rolleyes: They see Obama and the UN in everything they do.
http://www.naturalnews.com/036536_James_Holmes_shooting_false_flag.html
Quote from: Jaron on July 22, 2012, 06:29:33 PM
LOL, conservatives. :rolleyes: They see Obama and the UN in everything they do.
http://www.naturalnews.com/036536_James_Holmes_shooting_false_flag.html
Gun nuts are goofy.
From Jaron's website:
QuoteIf the baby was shot at point blank range, that means the shooter was right there beside them. Instead of gathering around and screaming, why didn't the family tackle the shooter?
This is not any sort of insensitive attempt at satire or blaming anyone, by the way. This is purely an effort to ask a deeply disturbing question that has been bothering me ever since this whole thing went down:
How can a lone gunman fire off at least 100 rounds in a crowded theater full of people and have NOBODY fight back, shoot back or attempt to tackle him?
Martinus?
Quote from: Neil on July 22, 2012, 07:57:36 PM
From Jaron's website:
QuoteIf the baby was shot at point blank range, that means the shooter was right there beside them. Instead of gathering around and screaming, why didn't the family tackle the shooter?
This is not any sort of insensitive attempt at satire or blaming anyone, by the way. This is purely an effort to ask a deeply disturbing question that has been bothering me ever since this whole thing went down:
How can a lone gunman fire off at least 100 rounds in a crowded theater full of people and have NOBODY fight back, shoot back or attempt to tackle him?
Martinus?
Shock, confusion, and disbelief would be my guess. Plus, personal preservation. Whoever tackled the guy would be risking getting shot point-blank.
Plus the darkness and tear gas. It was like Munich all over again.
Quote from: merithyn on July 22, 2012, 07:59:55 PM
Shock, confusion, and disbelief would be my guess. Plus, personal preservation. Whoever tackled the guy would be risking getting shot point-blank.
:yes: Combination of all of the above, methinks.
Ayn Rand rocks.
Incorrect.
Quote from: Siege on July 22, 2012, 08:09:21 PM
Ayn Rand rocks.
Because she would disapprove of nearly everything you do and stand for?
The Fountainhead was interesting. Among other things it teaches us that women long to be raped. :hmm:
Where the fuck is the Game of Thrones thread???
Did CdM erase it?
Somebody need to put that faggot in his place.
Quote from: Siege on July 22, 2012, 11:42:24 PM
Where the fuck is the Game of Thrones thread???
Did CdM erase it?
Somebody need to put that faggot in his place.
Yes Seedy destroyed it from existence!
First he bans Bmo, now this. :mad:
Quote from: Siege on July 22, 2012, 11:42:24 PM
Where the fuck is the Game of Thrones thread???
Did CdM erase it?
Somebody need to put that faggot in his place.
Fuck you, you fucking Heeb terrorist. Not my problem you can't count past Page 2. Foreign agent bitch.
Odd bit of reporting:
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/colorado-shooting-suspect-james-holmes-appear-court-monday-111006043.html
QuoteHolmes, who was transported from a holding cell to the courtroom via an underground tunnel, appeared dazed. His brow furrowed. His head bobbed. His eyes opened and closed often. His hair was dyed red. His hands and feet were shackled. He did not speak.
Quote from: garbon on July 23, 2012, 12:32:56 PM
Odd bit of reporting:
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/colorado-shooting-suspect-james-holmes-appear-court-monday-111006043.html
QuoteHolmes, who was transported from a holding cell to the courtroom via an underground tunnel, appeared dazed. His brow furrowed. His head bobbed. His eyes opened and closed often. His hair was dyed red. His hands and feet were shackled. He did not speak.
Makes it sound like someone colored his hair while he was being moved through the tunnel.
Or in the courtroom. :D
I think this case goes to what Neil has been saying for years - people who dye their hair rainbow-bright colours are a menace to society.
I think that's rainbow-brite.
Quote from: garbon on July 23, 2012, 12:54:09 PM
I think that's rainbow-brite.
I defer to your expert knowledge. -_-
http://www.tmz.com/2012/07/23/james-holmes-colorado-shooter-sex-adult-friend-finder-rejected
People just don't get what an overpowering drive sex is. As soon as this happened I was thinking "this dude couldn't get laid". What do you know. Not that it's the main thing, but if he was suffering other stresses and depressed or whatever, I guarantee it made it way worse.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 23, 2012, 04:44:03 PM
http://www.tmz.com/2012/07/23/james-holmes-colorado-shooter-sex-adult-friend-finder-rejected
People just don't get what an overpowering drive sex is. As soon as this happened I was thinking "this dude couldn't get laid". What do you know. Not that it's the main thing, but if he was suffering other stresses and depressed or whatever, I guarantee it made it way worse.
What a non story (oh look - its from TMZ go figure). The account was opened July 5 - thats two weeks beforehand. He'd been planning this for months.
Shoulda joined the seduction community. :(
Muslims don't fuck either, and look how frequently they do shit like this.
Quote from: Siege on July 23, 2012, 09:16:34 PM
Muslims don't fuck either, and look how frequently they do shit like this.
I think you're confusing Muslims with the Shakers. :hmm:
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 23, 2012, 04:44:03 PM
http://www.tmz.com/2012/07/23/james-holmes-colorado-shooter-sex-adult-friend-finder-rejected
People just don't get what an overpowering drive sex is. As soon as this happened I was thinking "this dude couldn't get laid". What do you know. Not that it's the main thing, but if he was suffering other stresses and depressed or whatever, I guarantee it made it way worse.
Even if accurate, it brings up a chicken-or-egg question: did he develop mental health problems because he couldn't get laid, or could he not get laid because he had mental health problems?
Quote from: dps on July 23, 2012, 09:43:30 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 23, 2012, 04:44:03 PM
http://www.tmz.com/2012/07/23/james-holmes-colorado-shooter-sex-adult-friend-finder-rejected
People just don't get what an overpowering drive sex is. As soon as this happened I was thinking "this dude couldn't get laid". What do you know. Not that it's the main thing, but if he was suffering other stresses and depressed or whatever, I guarantee it made it way worse.
Even if accurate, it brings up a chicken-or-egg question: did he develop mental health problems because he couldn't get laid, or could he not get laid because he had mental health problems?
Or did he have health problems because of a mental lay ?
Quote from: Siege on July 23, 2012, 09:16:34 PM
Muslims don't fuck either, and look how frequently they do shit like this.
:hmm: I'm pretty sure they do, unless it's been a recent phenomenon.
Quote from: Barrister on July 23, 2012, 12:53:04 PM
I think this case goes to what Neil has been saying for years - people who dye their hair rainbow-bright colours are a menace to society.
Btw, I hate that all the press is repeating that "he had his hair dyed red, like Joker in "Dark Knight". JOKER HAD GREEN HAIR, damn it. Media are full of lies. :Embarrass:
Btw, has anyone else said already that anyone who brings a 3 month old baby to a fucking cinema deserves to be shot?
Quote from: Martinus on July 24, 2012, 01:33:36 AM
Btw, has anyone else said already that anyone who brings a 3 month old baby to a fucking cinema deserves to be shot?
Yes, Neil I think. You two think a lot alike.
Quote from: Martinus on July 24, 2012, 01:33:36 AM
Btw, has anyone else said already that anyone who brings a 3 month old baby to a fucking cinema deserves to be shot?
I doubt they intentionally wanted to do that, but the parent(s) are probably morons who couldn't figure out how to get a babysitter in time.
Quote from: Martinus on July 24, 2012, 01:33:36 AM
Btw, has anyone else said already that anyone who brings a 3 month old baby to a fucking cinema deserves to be shot?
yeah.
Quote from: Martinus on July 24, 2012, 01:32:29 AM
Quote from: Barrister on July 23, 2012, 12:53:04 PM
I think this case goes to what Neil has been saying for years - people who dye their hair rainbow-bright colours are a menace to society.
Btw, I hate that all the press is repeating that "he had his hair dyed red, like Joker in "Dark Knight". JOKER HAD GREEN HAIR, damn it. Media are full of lies. :Embarrass:
Not so much lies as incompetance.
Quote from: Martinus on July 24, 2012, 01:33:36 AM
Btw, has anyone else said already that anyone who brings a 3 month old baby to a fucking cinema deserves to be shot?
Eh babies that young are fine because they are too small to make much noise and they tend to sleep through it. Now an older baby or *gasp* a toddler...yes they do.
I sorta miss having a newborn for that reason. We could go out to eat and he would just lay there quietly. Now it is an adventure, though fortunately he does not make much noise.
Quote from: dps on July 24, 2012, 07:03:36 AM
Not so much lies as incompetance.
The truth would ruin their story about how bad movies cause mass murders.
Though the internet does point out that Joker had a scene where he wore a red wig in Dark Knight.
Quote from: Caliga on July 24, 2012, 06:46:57 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 24, 2012, 01:33:36 AM
Btw, has anyone else said already that anyone who brings a 3 month old baby to a fucking cinema deserves to be shot?
I doubt they intentionally wanted to do that, but the parent(s) are probably morons who couldn't figure out how to get a babysitter in time.
Isn't the solution to that problem not to go out?
Quote from: Martinus on July 24, 2012, 01:33:36 AM
Btw, has anyone else said already that anyone who brings a 3 month old baby to a fucking cinema deserves to be shot?
No, I mentioned that the 6 year old shouldn't have been in a theater (and then the 3 month old was pointed out to me) but I'd never suggest that evidence of poor parenting means the parents should be shot.
Quote from: Valmy on July 24, 2012, 08:11:26 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 24, 2012, 01:33:36 AM
Btw, has anyone else said already that anyone who brings a 3 month old baby to a fucking cinema deserves to be shot?
Eh babies that young are fine because they are too small to make much noise and they tend to sleep through it. Now an older baby or *gasp* a toddler...yes they do.
I sorta miss having a newborn for that reason. We could go out to eat and he would just lay there quietly. Now it is an adventure, though fortunately he does not make much noise.
This.
When looking up V and M's assertion came across this. Oh my!
http://www.puritanboard.com/f32/what-do-you-do-crying-screaming-3-4-month-old-52556/
QuoteWe have a 3 1/2 month year old son. After 3 months, he started being really fussy. He sleeps pretty good through the night, feeds regularly. In the past week he has up-ed his feedings from 6-7/day to 8-10/day (breast-fed). He is really good, quite or having a fun time, smiling, etc. right after he feeds, but usually after 30 or so minutes, he starts crying (if I'm holding him). And I can do everything and nothing will calm him down. What he wants is his mom to hold him. And when that happens, he calms down, or my wife calms him down by feeding him.
Is this the time to start disciplining him, knowing that he is not hungry for sure, do we let him cry himself out (for, what i think will be over an hour of crying)? Would any one consider this 'child abuse', I've heard this before?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 24, 2012, 08:45:41 AM
Isn't the solution to that problem not to go out?
Uh, yeah. Not that hard to figure out, really.
As an aside, is taking very young children to see an adult movie a regional thing? I haven't seen it at all in Toronto, but from discussion of this incident it seems that in the US is is not uncommon.
I'd never take Carl out to see a movie like this (particularly not a midnight showing!). For a whole host of reasons:
1. It would probably scare the bejesus out of him (resulting in trauma and nightmares);
2. If he got bored or frightened during the movie, he might start misbehaving in ways that would annoy the other patrons (or at least, me dealing with that would); and
3. It's midnight. He needs to sleep. Tired kids are most likely to act hyper at the time, and will be wrecks the next day.
Of course, there is the added risk of armed lunatics. ;)
Quote from: Siege on July 23, 2012, 09:16:34 PM
frequently they do shit
Are Shi'ite girls easy or something?
Quote from: Valmy on July 24, 2012, 08:11:26 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 24, 2012, 01:33:36 AM
Btw, has anyone else said already that anyone who brings a 3 month old baby to a fucking cinema deserves to be shot?
Eh babies that young are fine because they are too small to make much noise and they tend to sleep through it. Now an older baby or *gasp* a toddler...yes they do.
I sorta miss having a newborn for that reason. We could go out to eat and he would just lay there quietly. Now it is an adventure, though fortunately he does not make much noise.
We never took Timmy to a movie when he was a newborn, but I have no problem with someone who does. Newborns are pretty quiet and just sleep a lot. We did take him out for dinner several times.
Now that he's two, though, not a chance.
Quote from: Malthus on July 24, 2012, 09:00:06 AM
As an aside, is taking very young children to see an adult movie a regional thing? I haven't seen it at all in Toronto, but from discussion of this incident it seems that in the US is is not uncommon.
I'd never take Carl out to see a movie like this (particularly not a midnight showing!). For a whole host of reasons:
1. It would probably scare the bejesus out of him (resulting in trauma and nightmares);
2. If he got bored or frightened during the movie, he might start misbehaving in ways that would annoy the other patrons (or at least, me dealing with that would); and
3. It's midnight. He needs to sleep. Tired kids are most likely to act hyper at the time, and will be wrecks the next day.
Of course, there is the added risk of armed lunatics. ;)
It's not very common in my neck of the woods. If you see it at all, it's when someone is taking all their kids to a movie, which is usually a kids movie in the afternoon.
Tommy burned us when we tried to take him to see How to Train Your Dragon when he was two and a half. He was obsessed with the trailer that aired repeatedly on TV, so we figured he'd sit still for at least part of the movie. Nope. It was such a bad experience for us we waited almost two years to try taking him to another movie, though my parents have been brave enough to take him & his cousins to other movies since.
I think if it's a kid's movie and it's a matinee, your risks are pretty low since there should be a lot of other kids there making noise and acting up. But a midnight showing of a non-kid's movie is the opposite end of the spectrum and I don't understand why anyone would put themselves, their kids, and others through that.
Quote from: Barrister on July 24, 2012, 09:25:55 AM
We never took Timmy to a movie when he was a newborn, but I have no problem with someone who does. Newborns are pretty quiet and just sleep a lot. We did take him out for dinner several times.
Some newborns are quiet. Some are quiet only when you don't need them to be. We were pretty lucky with both of ours in most cases, but there were times when it became an issue and we had dinners that were cut short, had to miss part of whatever it was we were attending, etc.
Jesus Christ people I think this midnight screening had bigger problems than toddlers.
Quote from: garbon on July 24, 2012, 08:54:12 AM
When looking up V and M's assertion came across this. Oh my!
http://www.puritanboard.com/f32/what-do-you-do-crying-screaming-3-4-month-old-52556/
QuoteWe have a 3 1/2 month year old son. After 3 months, he started being really fussy. He sleeps pretty good through the night, feeds regularly. In the past week he has up-ed his feedings from 6-7/day to 8-10/day (breast-fed). He is really good, quite or having a fun time, smiling, etc. right after he feeds, but usually after 30 or so minutes, he starts crying (if I'm holding him). And I can do everything and nothing will calm him down. What he wants is his mom to hold him. And when that happens, he calms down, or my wife calms him down by feeding him.
Is this the time to start disciplining him, knowing that he is not hungry for sure, do we let him cry himself out (for, what i think will be over an hour of crying)? Would any one consider this 'child abuse', I've heard this before?
:blink:
That's horrifying!
Quote from: Malthus on July 24, 2012, 09:00:06 AM
As an aside, is taking very young children to see an adult movie a regional thing? I haven't seen it at all in Toronto, but from discussion of this incident it seems that in the US is is not uncommon.
I'd never take Carl out to see a movie like this (particularly not a midnight showing!). For a whole host of reasons:
1. It would probably scare the bejesus out of him (resulting in trauma and nightmares);
2. If he got bored or frightened during the movie, he might start misbehaving in ways that would annoy the other patrons (or at least, me dealing with that would); and
3. It's midnight. He needs to sleep. Tired kids are most likely to act hyper at the time, and will be wrecks the next day.
Of course, there is the added risk of armed lunatics. ;)
Carl isn't 3-months old anymore. I wouldn't take a child his age, either, for all of the reasons you've stated.
Quote from: derspiess on July 24, 2012, 09:39:37 AM
Some newborns are quiet. Some are quiet only when you don't need them to be. We were pretty lucky with both of ours in most cases, but there were times when it became an issue and we had dinners that were cut short, had to miss part of whatever it was we were attending, etc.
I would assume the parents had a decent idea of what their infant was like.
Quote from: The Brain on July 24, 2012, 09:42:27 AM
Jesus Christ people I think this midnight screening had bigger problems than toddlers.
Absolutely.
Quote from: merithyn on July 24, 2012, 09:44:27 AM
Quote from: Malthus on July 24, 2012, 09:00:06 AM
As an aside, is taking very young children to see an adult movie a regional thing? I haven't seen it at all in Toronto, but from discussion of this incident it seems that in the US is is not uncommon.
I'd never take Carl out to see a movie like this (particularly not a midnight showing!). For a whole host of reasons:
1. It would probably scare the bejesus out of him (resulting in trauma and nightmares);
2. If he got bored or frightened during the movie, he might start misbehaving in ways that would annoy the other patrons (or at least, me dealing with that would); and
3. It's midnight. He needs to sleep. Tired kids are most likely to act hyper at the time, and will be wrecks the next day.
Of course, there is the added risk of armed lunatics. ;)
Carl isn't 3-months old anymore. I wouldn't take a child his age, either, for all of the reasons you've stated.
I was thinking more of the 6 year old apparently present in that theatre.
For an infant, I would't worry about him or her being traumatized by the movie, I'd worry more about him or her being kept awake and cranky by the loud, loud noises made by the movie (I assume there are gunshots, explosions, screams and loud background music in it) - and then traumatizing
everyone else with loud complaining. :lol: But that depends on the infant. Some can, literally, sleep through a gunfight. Others ... not so much.
Quote from: merithyn on July 24, 2012, 09:48:23 AM
I would assume the parents had a decent idea of what their infant was like.
You know very well that you can't always predict how your infant is going to be.
Going to see this with Habs this Thursday.
Berkut the Younger, now 12, wants to go with us. I guess it is PG-13, so maybe that is ok, but the last Dark Knight movie was pretty fucking dark, so I am not sure really.
Quote from: dps on July 23, 2012, 09:43:30 PM
Even if accurate, it brings up a chicken-or-egg question: did he develop mental health problems because he couldn't get laid, or could he not get laid because he had mental health problems?
Not so much a chicken-or-egg question than a vicious circle, I think. Frustration leads to more desperation, which is a big turn-off, and leads to more frustration that bottles up. Whether one or the other was the cause is by then irrelevant.
Then again, when you are caught in such a broken loop the only way to snap out of it is to wake up that you have mental problems, and seek professional help. He, unfortunately, didn't. :(
Quote from: derspiess on July 24, 2012, 09:36:06 AM
I think if it's a kid's movie and it's a matinee, your risks are pretty low since there should be a lot of other kids there making noise and acting up. But a midnight showing of a non-kid's movie is the opposite end of the spectrum and I don't understand why anyone would put themselves, their kids, and others through that.
Agreed.
Your post reminded me of the time I took my oldest son to see Monsters Inc. I cant remember how old he was but he was quite young - perhaps 5 or so. Some parts scared him so much he hid behind seats in front of us and would peek in between them until the scary parts ended.
I too find it rather odd someone would take a young child to see a movie like Batman.
Quote from: Drakken on July 24, 2012, 09:53:37 AM
Quote from: dps on July 23, 2012, 09:43:30 PM
Even if accurate, it brings up a chicken-or-egg question: did he develop mental health problems because he couldn't get laid, or could he not get laid because he had mental health problems?
Not so much a chicken-or-egg question than a vicious circle, I think. Frustration leads to more desperation, which is a big turn-off, and leads to more frustration that bottles up. Whether one or the other was the cause is by then irrelevant.
Then again, when you are caught in such a broken loop the only way to snap out of it is to wake up that you have mental problems, and seek professional help. He, unfortunately, didn't. :(
Yeah, but I think it's a side-issue or a thing that exacerbates existing problems. Probably not a cause in itself. I think it's safe to assume that a dude who is getting laid regularly is considerably less likely to snap like this if for no other reason than he has an outlet in that, like you say.
Quote from: garbon on July 24, 2012, 08:47:32 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 24, 2012, 01:33:36 AM
Btw, has anyone else said already that anyone who brings a 3 month old baby to a fucking cinema deserves to be shot?
No, I mentioned that the 6 year old shouldn't have been in a theater (and then the 3 month old was pointed out to me) but I'd never suggest that evidence of poor parenting means the parents should be shot.
I disagree. If more people were being shot, we would have less problems.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 24, 2012, 08:45:41 AM
Isn't the solution to that problem not to go out?
That would be my solution, yes. But I also have a job and so can't be at midnight screenings on a Friday morning, so maybe I'm not the best person to be trying to defend these guys. :)
Quote from: merithyn on July 24, 2012, 09:48:23 AM
Quote from: derspiess on July 24, 2012, 09:39:37 AM
Some newborns are quiet. Some are quiet only when you don't need them to be. We were pretty lucky with both of ours in most cases, but there were times when it became an issue and we had dinners that were cut short, had to miss part of whatever it was we were attending, etc.
I would assume the parents had a decent idea of what their infant was like.
In that particular instance, bullet proof?
Quote from: Martinus on July 24, 2012, 11:49:49 AM
I disagree. If more people were being shot, we would have less problems.
The Stalinism is strong in this one. :menace:
Quote from: Caliga on July 24, 2012, 11:52:10 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 24, 2012, 08:45:41 AM
Isn't the solution to that problem not to go out?
That would be my solution, yes. But I also have a job and so can't be at midnight screenings on a Friday morning, so maybe I'm not the best person to be trying to defend these guys. :)
I have a job and could attend a midnight screening...
Quote from: Caliga on July 24, 2012, 11:52:37 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 24, 2012, 11:49:49 AM
I disagree. If more people were being shot, we would have less problems.
The Stalinism is strong in this one. :menace:
Which puts him down for an odd Grallon-like behavior. He'd be one of the first up against the wall.
Quote from: garbon on July 24, 2012, 12:09:49 PM
I have a job and could attend a midnight screening...
Do you get up at 5:30 am every morning like me? :)
Quote from: Caliga on July 24, 2012, 12:18:26 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 24, 2012, 12:09:49 PM
I have a job and could attend a midnight screening...
Do you get up at 5:30 am every morning like me? :)
No one in their right mind gets up at 5:30 am every morning.
Quote from: katmai on July 24, 2012, 12:23:02 PM
Quote from: Caliga on July 24, 2012, 12:18:26 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 24, 2012, 12:09:49 PM
I have a job and could attend a midnight screening...
Do you get up at 5:30 am every morning like me? :)
No one in their right mind gets up at 5:30 am every morning.
No kidding, the lazy bums. I am out of the house by then on a normal day.
Quote from: Martinus on July 24, 2012, 11:49:49 AM
If more people were being shot, we would have less problems.
Unfortunately, a bullet hasn't found your cocksmoking ass yet. Yet.
I feel like this should be the headline for an Onion article.
http://gma.yahoo.com/james-holmes-goofy-behavior-sign-psychosis-faking-expert-142209134--abc-news-topstories.html
QuoteJames Holmes' Goofy Behavior Sign of Psychosis or Faking It, Expert Says
Accused movie theater gunman James Holmes was not on drugs when he appeared dazed in court, but experts are looking for explanations for his odd behavior that included turning evidence bags on his hands into puppets after his arrest, sources told ABC News.
The loopy, seemingly unconcerned actions by the former Ph.D student accused of killing 12 people and wounding 58 is seen by some as signs of psychosis -- or that he's faking it.
Sources tell ABC News that Holmes was not on drugs or medication at the time of the hearing, but Holmes has demonstrated a pattern of bizarre behavior since his arrest outside an Aurora, Colo., movie theater last Friday.
When Holmes was arrested he told police he was the fictitious Batman villain, The Joker. When police put evidence bags over his hands to preserve traces of gunpowder residue, Holmes pretended the bags were puppets, law enforcement sources told ABC News.
Holmes has acted unfazed by his arrest, police say. He has been uncooperative since he was taken into custody, giving investigators little information, and yet disclosing his apartment was booby trapped with dozens of explosives.
His behavior in court Monday was particularly strange. Unshaven, with a shock of died orange hair, Holmes alternated between staring wide-eyed to closing his eyes and appearing to nod off.
His lawyer even had to nudge him to rise when the judge entered the courtroom. He said nothing during the proceedings, in which he was held without bond.
Some observers wondered if Holmes was on drugs or being medicated. Sources told ABC News, he was not on drugs, leading to expert theories that he may have been in the grips of "psychotic episode," exhausted from stress or simply faking it.
"I think there are two possibilities going on here," Marissa Randazzo, former chief research psychologist for the U.S. Secret Service and an expert in mass shootings, told "Good Morning America" today.
"One is that he is in the middle of a psychotic episode which is quite possible. We see him distracted at multiple points, an almost sort of 'coming to' and trying to figure out where he is and process what's going on," she said.
"The other thing that we're seeing -- and we've seen some of this behavior in the past couple months -- might suggest mania. Meaning hyperactivity, hyper energy, been possibly up and not sleeping for days. What we might be seeing here is the post effects."
But Randazzo also said there was a third possibility. He might simply be faking it.
"It's possible," she said when asked if Holmes' behavior could be all an act. "It is possible. We'll leave that open," she said, adding that most people who lie about that sort of behavior are sociopaths and "What we've heard about his history does not suggest sociopath at all."
"Let's keep that in mind that he was studying neuroscience. He was studying exactly the type of brain issues that we're going to be talking about throughout this whole case," she said.
No shit Sherlock.
My vote is for faking it. He's a smart guy, but he's not as smart as he thinks he is.
What a non-article. Nothing about his behaviour (other than the hand puppets) is remotely unusual for an accused person in court.
Quote from: Caliga on July 24, 2012, 01:00:09 PM
My vote is for faking it. He's a smart guy, but he's not as smart as he thinks he is.
Obviously. He seems to be fooling a lot of news reporters, though.
Quote from: derspiess on July 24, 2012, 01:03:29 PM
Obviously. He seems to be fooling a lot of news reporters, though.
Hardly a major achievement though. :D
Quote from: garbon on July 24, 2012, 12:10:54 PM
Quote from: Caliga on July 24, 2012, 11:52:37 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 24, 2012, 11:49:49 AM
I disagree. If more people were being shot, we would have less problems.
The Stalinism is strong in this one. :menace:
Which puts him down for an odd Grallon-like behavior. He'd be one of the first up against the wall.
Gay, lawyer(?), bourgeois, Apple product whore.
They'd rip him to shreds if the revolution came.
He died his air orange?
Quote from: Caliga on July 24, 2012, 12:18:26 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 24, 2012, 12:09:49 PM
I have a job and could attend a midnight screening...
Do you get up at 5:30 am every morning like me? :)
No but like Kat said - I wouldn't want to / don't need to.
Quote from: Neil on July 24, 2012, 01:11:34 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 24, 2012, 12:10:54 PM
Quote from: Caliga on July 24, 2012, 11:52:37 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 24, 2012, 11:49:49 AM
I disagree. If more people were being shot, we would have less problems.
The Stalinism is strong in this one. :menace:
Which puts him down for an odd Grallon-like behavior. He'd be one of the first up against the wall.
Gay, lawyer(?), bourgeois, Apple product whore.
They'd rip him to shreds if the revolution came.
Yeah that's the odd thing.
Quote from: garbon on July 24, 2012, 12:10:54 PM
Quote from: Caliga on July 24, 2012, 11:52:37 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 24, 2012, 11:49:49 AM
I disagree. If more people were being shot, we would have less problems.
The Stalinism is strong in this one. :menace:
Which puts him down for an odd Grallon-like behavior. He'd be one of the first up against the wall.
It's funny how you take a misinterpretation of my position by Caliga as my position and develop on that strawman. :D
I never supported a police state or a revolution culling the "undesirables". When I express some sort of antisocial instincts, they are almost always structured along the lines of some sort of anarchic aristocratic elitism, the kind we used to have in the Poland of old or the ancient regime France, where a local noble could have pretty much everyone in his demesne horse whipped at his whim as long as he did not fuck up with the bigger guys. In such system, I would obviously be privileged, as I have the necessary wealth.
Wealth does not equal aristocracy.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 24, 2012, 02:54:39 PM
Wealth does not equal aristocracy.
In the modern world of rampant capitalism it does.
Quote from: Martinus on July 24, 2012, 02:51:20 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 24, 2012, 12:10:54 PM
Quote from: Caliga on July 24, 2012, 11:52:37 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 24, 2012, 11:49:49 AM
I disagree. If more people were being shot, we would have less problems.
The Stalinism is strong in this one. :menace:
Which puts him down for an odd Grallon-like behavior. He'd be one of the first up against the wall.
It's funny how you take a misinterpretation of my position by Caliga as my position and develop on that strawman. :D
I never supported a police state or a revolution culling the "undesirables". When I express some sort of antisocial instincts, they are almost always structured along the lines of some sort of anarchic aristocratic elitism, the kind we used to have in the Poland of old or the ancient regime France, where a local noble could have pretty much everyone in his demesne horse whipped at his whim as long as he did not fuck up with the bigger guys. In such system, I would obviously be privileged, as I have the necessary wealth.
Because being whipped is the same as being killed?
Besides your micro-fault doesn't inspire much confidence that you have a large demesne.
I don't think government of old Poland or anciens regime of France exists in the modern world.
Actually, he struck me as someone suffering from severe sleep apnea.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 24, 2012, 02:57:57 PM
I don't think government of old Poland or anciens regime of France exists in the modern world.
Your point being?
Quote from: Martinus on July 24, 2012, 03:01:36 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 24, 2012, 02:57:57 PM
I don't think government of old Poland or anciens regime of France exists in the modern world.
Your point being?
What you say doesn't make sense. You should just admit that you say stupid things, rather then coming up with after the fact rationalizations that are also stupid.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 24, 2012, 03:05:47 PM
Quote from: Martinus on July 24, 2012, 03:01:36 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 24, 2012, 02:57:57 PM
I don't think government of old Poland or anciens regime of France exists in the modern world.
Your point being?
What you say doesn't make sense. You should just admit that you say stupid things, rather then coming up with after the fact rationalizations that are also stupid.
:hug:
Apparently Batman has been visiting some of the victims at hospital today. (http://movies.yahoo.com/blogs/movie-talk/christian-bale-visits-colorado-shooting-victims-220129641.html)
Quote from: katmai on July 24, 2012, 06:24:51 PM
Apparently Batman has been visiting some of the victims at hospital today. (http://movies.yahoo.com/blogs/movie-talk/christian-bale-visits-colorado-shooting-victims-220129641.html)
At
THE hospital, not at hospital. What are you going Eurofag on us now too?
Now?
:bleeding:
QuoteAttorney Don Karpel told TMZ that the suit will allege that the Century 16 theater, which is owned by Cinemark, was negligent for not having the exit door guarded or equipped with an alarm that would sound when it opened. (Holmes reportedly left the theater via the exit door, propped it open, and reentered with his weapons.) The suit also targets Warner Brothers, blaming their movie's violence for inspiring Holmes. Also named in the suit: suspect James Holmes' doctors, if they exist, for hypothetically not monitoring his hypothetical mental condition adequately.
Ah, lawyers.
Lawyers are the worst.
Quote from: Martinus on July 24, 2012, 02:55:35 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 24, 2012, 02:54:39 PM
Wealth does not equal aristocracy.
In the modern world of rampant capitalism it does.
You're not in their class. Sure, you do alright, but you're not rich.
All these pretentions of yours are even sadder than that one guy who is always having dinner with the ambassador. You're hired help, and nothing more. And you're not even part of Western civilization, no matter how many Apple products your buy.
Quote from: Neil on July 24, 2012, 10:53:42 PM
Quote from: Martinus on July 24, 2012, 02:55:35 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 24, 2012, 02:54:39 PM
Wealth does not equal aristocracy.
In the modern world of rampant capitalism it does.
You're not in their class. Sure, you do alright, but you're not rich.
All these pretentions of yours are even sadder than that one guy who is always having dinner with the ambassador. You're hired help, and nothing more. And you're not even part of Western civilization, no matter how many Apple products your buy.
For once Neil is absolutely right.
Marty, I don't begrudge you the success you've had. Good on you!
But when you hobnob with your clients, you realize they're on a whole different world. You are just the hired help. And while your boss might complain if you suddenly vanished, but soon enough your files would be distributed amongst other lawyers and life would go on.
Well, Poland did have quite a large "aristocracy" in medieval times, he'd hardly have to be a 1%er to qualify.
While Martinus is not in the same class as most business tycoons, he is certainly a class above most office workers.
Quote from: Martinus on July 24, 2012, 02:55:35 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 24, 2012, 02:54:39 PM
Wealth does not equal aristocracy.
In the modern world of rampant capitalism it does.
No, no it does not. Don't say this again.
I'm definitely in top 1% of Poles when it comes to person wealth.
Quote from: Martinus on July 25, 2012, 07:35:17 AM
I'm definitely in top 1% of Poles when it comes to person wealth.
Yeah, but globalization means that you can be a big deal in some tiny country, but still totally irrelevant.
Quote from: Martinus on July 25, 2012, 07:35:17 AM
I'm definitely in top 1% of Poles when it comes to person wealth.
This reminds me of that scene in Eurotrip when the characters wind up in Eastern Europe.
Quote from: Martinus on July 25, 2012, 07:35:17 AM
I'm definitely in top 1% of Poles when it comes to person wealth.
:lmfao:
you're merely doing good, compared to most Poles, but 1%? Who the fuck are you? Ryszard Krauze? :D
I would be very surprised if Marty wasn't in the Polish 1%.
Fuck, I'm probably in the Polish 1%, along with most of Languish.
Including our unemployed.
Martinus' salary will probably blow most of us out of the water.
Quote from: Monoriu on July 25, 2012, 09:14:32 AM
Martinus' salary will probably blow most of us out of the water.
In what way? That we would find it amazing? :unsure:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 25, 2012, 08:20:46 AM
I would be very surprised if Marty wasn't in the Polish 1%.
Top 1% for income? Sure.
Top 1% for wealth? I have my doubts.
Quote from: Barrister on July 25, 2012, 09:15:56 AM
Top 1% for wealth? I have my doubts.
What's his competition? They started from scratch in 89. There are no Vanderbilts or Rockefellers in Poland.
Well of course not, those aren't Polish names.
Quote from: szmik on July 25, 2012, 08:16:45 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 25, 2012, 07:35:17 AM
I'm definitely in top 1% of Poles when it comes to person wealth.
:lmfao:
you're merely doing good, compared to most Poles, but 1%? Who the fuck are you? Ryszard Krauze? :D
Krauze is in 0.000001% of Poles. You know that 1% is a lot of people, right? You are talking about someone who is on the list of 100 richest Poles. Unless, there are only 10,000 Poles in total, it takes much much less money to be in 1% of wealthiest Poles, you know.
To continue, no dot.com billionaires, no (or at least not many) filthy rich fodbolistas, no famous movie actors, no oligarchs who cheated a privatization scheme, not much of anything.
Although as a side note, dot.com is a little redundant, isn't it?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 25, 2012, 09:17:57 AM
Quote from: Barrister on July 25, 2012, 09:15:56 AM
Top 1% for wealth? I have my doubts.
What's his competition? They started from scratch in 89. There are no Vanderbilts or Rockefellers in Poland.
But they didn't start from scratch. I understand it wasn't as bad as Russia, but numerous former government functionaries made out very well in the years following '89.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 25, 2012, 09:29:16 AM
Although as a side note, dot.com is a little redundant, isn't it?
Well not if you stick to forms like "dot com" or "dot-com".
Apparently, there are 100,000 Poles who own more than 1 million zloty (app. $300,000) worth of assets and cash. With Polish populace being in the ballpark of 30,000,000 I think it can be safely said (even if you discount kids and the like) that if you own that amount you are in the 1% of richest Poles.
My net equity is worth that much (or more if you also count stuff I get to inherit from my parents and I'm the only child).
Quote from: Barrister on July 25, 2012, 09:15:56 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 25, 2012, 08:20:46 AM
I would be very surprised if Marty wasn't in the Polish 1%.
Top 1% for income? Sure.
Top 1% for wealth? I have my doubts.
Why are you assuming that my parents won't be leaving me anything? I am helping them as they do not have income, but they own a large house with a garden near Warsaw and a collection of antique cars. One of the cars there alone is worth about 1 million zloty.
Quote from: Gups on July 25, 2012, 10:21:21 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 25, 2012, 10:16:55 AM
I'm the only child
Go figure
Yeah, I had responsible parents who were educated enough to use a condom. Not sure if that's understandeable in your cultural circles. :)
Maybe after the results of the first attempt they simply didn't think it would be worth it to try again.
Quote from: Martinus on July 25, 2012, 10:18:08 AM
Quote from: Barrister on July 25, 2012, 09:15:56 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 25, 2012, 08:20:46 AM
I would be very surprised if Marty wasn't in the Polish 1%.
Top 1% for income? Sure.
Top 1% for wealth? I have my doubts.
Why are you assuming that my parents won't be leaving me anything? I am helping them as they do not have income, but they own a large house with a garden near Warsaw and a collection of antique cars. One of the cars there alone is worth about 1 million zloty.
I'm not sure how it makes sense to include expected future wealth in one's net worth.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 25, 2012, 10:25:15 AM
Maybe after the results of the fist attempt they simply didn't think it would be worth it to try again.
:pinch: :pinch: :pinch: :XD: :lmfao:
Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2012, 10:28:09 AM
I'm not sure how it makes sense to include expected future wealth in one's net worth.
It actually makes a lot of sense, but given subjective nature of such evaluations, it's usually not done.
Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2012, 10:28:09 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 25, 2012, 10:18:08 AM
Quote from: Barrister on July 25, 2012, 09:15:56 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 25, 2012, 08:20:46 AM
I would be very surprised if Marty wasn't in the Polish 1%.
Top 1% for income? Sure.
Top 1% for wealth? I have my doubts.
Why are you assuming that my parents won't be leaving me anything? I am helping them as they do not have income, but they own a large house with a garden near Warsaw and a collection of antique cars. One of the cars there alone is worth about 1 million zloty.
I'm not sure how it makes sense to include expected future wealth in one's net worth.
I am not. But Barrister's point seems to be that unlike a lot of other people I started from scratch and as a result would not be in the top 1%. I haven't started from scratch.
Quote from: Martinus on July 25, 2012, 09:24:15 AM
Quote from: szmik on July 25, 2012, 08:16:45 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 25, 2012, 07:35:17 AM
I'm definitely in top 1% of Poles when it comes to person wealth.
:lmfao:
you're merely doing good, compared to most Poles, but 1%? Who the fuck are you? Ryszard Krauze? :D
Krauze is in 0.000001% of Poles. You know that 1% is a lot of people, right? You are talking about someone who is on the list of 100 richest Poles. Unless, there are only 10,000 Poles in total, it takes much much less money to be in 1% of wealthiest Poles, you know.
oh, well, 1% is around 370k people, and I still doubt you're there.
Most people are poor, but hell, I live in small town (under 40k) and if you take local council, each member is much, much wealthier than you, and owning his/her profitable business. Now there're businessmen who don't give shit about going into politics and there's couple dozens around here, including high level managers. And there're other small towns like that you don't give a shit about, but they exist.
Not to mention bigger cities and Warsaw. Hell, I'd say you're not even in 1% of Warsaw wealthiest citizens.
So I seriously doubt you're in 1% taking whole country. But it's fun to have delusions like that. :nelson:
Now if you owned a business, that might be different story. As long as you're just hired you won't ever get to 1%. Unless you're top consultant and have the freedom to choose your jobs.
Quote from: szmik on July 25, 2012, 10:31:03 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 25, 2012, 09:24:15 AM
Quote from: szmik on July 25, 2012, 08:16:45 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 25, 2012, 07:35:17 AM
I'm definitely in top 1% of Poles when it comes to person wealth.
:lmfao:
you're merely doing good, compared to most Poles, but 1%? Who the fuck are you? Ryszard Krauze? :D
Krauze is in 0.000001% of Poles. You know that 1% is a lot of people, right? You are talking about someone who is on the list of 100 richest Poles. Unless, there are only 10,000 Poles in total, it takes much much less money to be in 1% of wealthiest Poles, you know.
oh, well, 1% is around 370k people, and I still doubt you're there.
Most people are poor, but hell, I live in small town (under 40k) and if you take local council, each member is much, much wealthier than you, and owning his/her profitable business. Now there're businessmen who don't give shit about going into politics and there's couple dozens around here, including high level managers. And there're other small towns like that you don't give a shit about, but they exist.
Not to mention bigger cities and Warsaw. Hell, I'd say you're not even in 1% of Warsaw wealthiest citizens.
So I seriously doubt you're in 1% taking whole country. But it's fun to have delusions like that. :nelson:
Now if you owned a business, that might be different story. As long as you're just hired you won't ever get to 1%. Unless you're top consultant and have the freedom to choose your jobs.
How much do you think/know I earn per month?
What Marty doesn't understand is that the point of aristocracy is that you are aren't supposed to work for your money. To do so is dishonorable.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 25, 2012, 10:33:26 AM
What Marty doesn't understand is that the point of aristocracy is that you are aren't supposed to work for your money. To do so is dishonorable.
Tell this to families like Romneys or Bushes.
Quote from: DGuller on July 25, 2012, 10:29:37 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2012, 10:28:09 AM
I'm not sure how it makes sense to include expected future wealth in one's net worth.
It actually makes a lot of sense, but given subjective nature of such evaluations, it's usually not done.
Not really. I mean unless they are facing imminent death - there's variability there. Not as much as if I were to say talk about my net-worth at the end of this year based on what I expect to get from my salary - but still seems sizable enough that there's not much value in talking about such. And a weird way of catapulting oneself into a particular wealth category.
Quote from: Martinus on July 25, 2012, 10:30:37 AM
I am not. But Barrister's point seems to be that unlike a lot of other people I started from scratch and as a result would not be in the top 1%. I haven't started from scratch.
Of course you didn't start from scratch - but what your parents may gave you has little to do with whether you are in the top 1% in terms of wealth right now (whether you are or are not is immaterial to my point).
Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2012, 10:38:58 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 25, 2012, 10:30:37 AM
I am not. But Barrister's point seems to be that unlike a lot of other people I started from scratch and as a result would not be in the top 1%. I haven't started from scratch.
Of course you didn't start from scratch - but what your parents may gave you has little to do with whether you are in the top 1% in terms of wealth right now (whether you are or are not is immaterial to my point).
Well but they have already helped me, e.g. with my first flat (which is now fully mine, with no mortgage and worth around half a million zloty) etc.
Quote from: szmik on July 25, 2012, 10:31:03 AM
As long as you're just hired you won't ever get to 1%. Unless you're top consultant and have the freedom to choose your jobs.
That's flat out false on top 1% in terms of income. Though of course, if you are making such a large amount, you tend to have options on where you choose to work. ;)
Quote from: Martinus on July 25, 2012, 10:39:51 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2012, 10:38:58 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 25, 2012, 10:30:37 AM
I am not. But Barrister's point seems to be that unlike a lot of other people I started from scratch and as a result would not be in the top 1%. I haven't started from scratch.
Of course you didn't start from scratch - but what your parents may gave you has little to do with whether you are in the top 1% in terms of wealth right now (whether you are or are not is immaterial to my point).
Well but they have already helped me, e.g. with my first flat (which is now fully mine, with no mortgage and worth around half a million zloty) etc.
That's all well and good but I don't see how that relates to the post of BB's that you quoted. His post states that he doubts you are in the top 1% in terms of wealth. What your parents did or didn't do doesn't really say much to that.
Quote from: szmik on July 25, 2012, 10:31:03 AM
Not to mention bigger cities and Warsaw. Hell, I'd say you're not even in 1% of Warsaw wealthiest citizens.
Even? Are you saying that it's easier to be in the 1% of Warsaw than it is to be in the 1% of Poland?
Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2012, 10:42:39 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 25, 2012, 10:39:51 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2012, 10:38:58 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 25, 2012, 10:30:37 AM
I am not. But Barrister's point seems to be that unlike a lot of other people I started from scratch and as a result would not be in the top 1%. I haven't started from scratch.
Of course you didn't start from scratch - but what your parents may gave you has little to do with whether you are in the top 1% in terms of wealth right now (whether you are or are not is immaterial to my point).
Well but they have already helped me, e.g. with my first flat (which is now fully mine, with no mortgage and worth around half a million zloty) etc.
That's all well and good but I don't see how that relates to the post of BB's that you quoted. His post states that he doubts you are in the top 1% in terms of wealth. What your parents did or didn't do doesn't really say much to that.
Well his implied point was that I could not be in top 1% in terms of wealth since the people who are did not start from scratch. Since I got something from my parents already, that belies his point. Is this so hard to understand?
Quote from: DGuller on July 25, 2012, 10:42:51 AM
Quote from: szmik on July 25, 2012, 10:31:03 AM
Not to mention bigger cities and Warsaw. Hell, I'd say you're not even in 1% of Warsaw wealthiest citizens.
Even? Are you saying that it's easier to be in the 1% of Warsaw than it is to be in the 1% of Poland?
Yeah he is funny like that. I didn't even want to address every absurdity in his post like you guys are doing right now.
Ok just to update you guys on our exchange with szmik in private messages. Apparently he thought I earn 20% of what I really do. I have said how much I earn before so thought that's public knowledge herre.
Quote from: Martinus on July 25, 2012, 10:44:01 AM
Well his implied point was that I could not be in top 1% in terms of wealth since the people who are did not start from scratch. Since I got something from my parents already, that belies his point. Is this so hard to understand?
Many people get things from their parents and that doesn't mean that they are in the top 1% in terms of wealth. I think you are focusing on one aspect and forgetting that there could be other reasons that he doesn't think you are in the top 1% in terms of wealth. Especially since it was Yi and not Beeb that suggested you started from scratch. BB actually said:
QuoteBut they didn't start from scratch. I understand it wasn't as bad as Russia, but numerous former government functionaries made out very well in the years following '89.
Quote from: Martinus on July 25, 2012, 10:48:48 AM
I have said how much I earn before so thought that's public knowledge herre.
Yes, you are terribly gauche.
Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2012, 10:37:30 AM
Not really. I mean unless they are facing imminent death - there's variability there. Not as much as if I were to say talk about my net-worth at the end of this year based on what I expect to get from my salary - but still seems sizable enough that there's not much value in talking about such. And a weird way of catapulting oneself into a particular wealth category.
So what if they're variable? Expected value doesn't require lack of variability, in fact it would be a redundant concept without it. Life insurance policies have variability too. They can pay off tomorrow, or they can pay off 30 years from now, or they may not even pay off at all if some conditions are not being met. Still, it would be hard to claim that this policy is worth zero dollars, unless you're very stupid.
The reason assets such as expected inheritance are usually not counted is because their evaluation is too subjective. However, economic value rarely equals accounting value. If someone knows that they have an inheritance coming, they will probably act in different ways with the assets they currently own as opposed to someone who knows he won't have any inheritance. Intuitively, most people are smart enough to know that even uncertain things have value.
Quote from: szmik on July 25, 2012, 10:31:03 AM
Most people are poor, but hell, I live in small town (under 40k) and if you take local council, each member is much, much wealthier than you, and owning his/her profitable business. Now there're businessmen who don't give shit about going into politics and there's couple dozens around here, including high level managers. And there're other small towns like that you don't give a shit about, but they exist.
How wealthy are the members of your local council?
And that's still only 12 or so out of 40K. You need 400 to get to 1% of 40K.
Quote from: Martinus on July 25, 2012, 10:48:48 AM
Ok just to update you guys on our exchange with szmik in private messages. Apparently he thought I earn 20% of what I really do. I have said how much I earn before so thought that's public knowledge herre.
I take back my point. He's there. :face:
Quote from: DGuller on July 25, 2012, 10:50:50 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2012, 10:37:30 AM
Not really. I mean unless they are facing imminent death - there's variability there. Not as much as if I were to say talk about my net-worth at the end of this year based on what I expect to get from my salary - but still seems sizable enough that there's not much value in talking about such. And a weird way of catapulting oneself into a particular wealth category.
So what if they're variable? Expected value doesn't require lack of variability, in fact it would be a redundant concept without it. Life insurance policies have variability too. They can pay off tomorrow, or they can pay off 30 years from now, or they may not even pay off at all if some conditions are not being met. Still, it would be hard to claim that this policy is worth zero dollars, unless you're very stupid.
The reason such assets are usually not counted is because their evaluation is too subjective. However, economic value rarely equals accounting value. If someone knows that they have an inheritance coming, they will probably act in different ways with the assets they currently own as opposed to someone who knows he won't have any inheritance. Intuitively, most people are smart enough to know that even uncertain things have value.
The point is that you aren't in the top 1% by wealth if the bulk of that wealth is actually held by your parents. :mellow:
Quote from: szmik on July 25, 2012, 10:51:39 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 25, 2012, 10:48:48 AM
Ok just to update you guys on our exchange with szmik in private messages. Apparently he thought I earn 20% of what I really do. I have said how much I earn before so thought that's public knowledge herre.
I take back my point. He's there. :face:
http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,5430.0.html
Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2012, 10:53:38 AM
Quote from: szmik on July 25, 2012, 10:51:39 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 25, 2012, 10:48:48 AM
Ok just to update you guys on our exchange with szmik in private messages. Apparently he thought I earn 20% of what I really do. I have said how much I earn before so thought that's public knowledge herre.
I take back my point. He's there. :face:
http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,5430.0.html
The topic or board you are looking for appears to be either missing or off limits to you. :glare:
Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2012, 10:52:21 AM
The point is that you aren't in the top 1% by wealth if the bulk of that wealth is actually held by your parents. :mellow:
That is true for the purposes of ranking. This isn't true for the purposes of determining actual effective wealth. Someone who is expected to inherit $5 billion is probably going to be treated as a very wealthy person, regardless of their current bank account balance.
Quote from: DGuller on July 25, 2012, 10:55:51 AM
That is true for the purposes of ranking. This isn't true for the purposes of determining actual effective wealth. Someone who is expected to inherit $5 billion is probably going to be treated as a very wealthy person, regardless of their current bank account balance.
Who was talking about the latter? :unsure:
Quote from: szmik on July 25, 2012, 10:55:02 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2012, 10:53:38 AM
Quote from: szmik on July 25, 2012, 10:51:39 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 25, 2012, 10:48:48 AM
Ok just to update you guys on our exchange with szmik in private messages. Apparently he thought I earn 20% of what I really do. I have said how much I earn before so thought that's public knowledge herre.
I take back my point. He's there. :face:
http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,5430.0.html
The topic or board you are looking for appears to be either missing or off limits to you. :glare:
I didn't realize the joke forum that had been created for Marti was hidden. :blush:
Anyway, that explains to me why you didn't know his income - which he posted in said forum.
Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2012, 10:52:21 AM
Quote from: DGuller on July 25, 2012, 10:50:50 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2012, 10:37:30 AM
Not really. I mean unless they are facing imminent death - there's variability there. Not as much as if I were to say talk about my net-worth at the end of this year based on what I expect to get from my salary - but still seems sizable enough that there's not much value in talking about such. And a weird way of catapulting oneself into a particular wealth category.
So what if they're variable? Expected value doesn't require lack of variability, in fact it would be a redundant concept without it. Life insurance policies have variability too. They can pay off tomorrow, or they can pay off 30 years from now, or they may not even pay off at all if some conditions are not being met. Still, it would be hard to claim that this policy is worth zero dollars, unless you're very stupid.
The reason such assets are usually not counted is because their evaluation is too subjective. However, economic value rarely equals accounting value. If someone knows that they have an inheritance coming, they will probably act in different ways with the assets they currently own as opposed to someone who knows he won't have any inheritance. Intuitively, most people are smart enough to know that even uncertain things have value.
The point is that you aren't in the top 1% by wealth if the bulk of that wealth is actually held by your parents. :mellow:
But my point is that I own wealth I already got from my parents and this, coupled with what I earned myself, puts me in top 1%.
Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2012, 10:53:38 AM
Quote from: szmik on July 25, 2012, 10:51:39 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 25, 2012, 10:48:48 AM
Ok just to update you guys on our exchange with szmik in private messages. Apparently he thought I earn 20% of what I really do. I have said how much I earn before so thought that's public knowledge herre.
I take back my point. He's there. :face:
http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,5430.0.html
I have got a raise and a bonus (equal to 100% of my month pay, so effectively further increasing my annual income for the last year by app. 8%) since.
I only become friends with people who make significantly less than I do. It's a great way for me to feel superior.
Quote from: The Brain on July 25, 2012, 11:04:24 AM
I only become friends with people who make significantly less than I do. It's a great way for me to feel superior.
It's funny but for me it seems to be the case as well - all my friends are significantly poorer than I am - I think the richest one makes 1/3 of what I make and the poorest makes 1/20.
Quote from: Martinus on July 25, 2012, 11:01:20 AM
But my point is that I own wealth I already got from my parents and this, coupled with what I earned myself, puts me in top 1%.
If this refers to what your parents currently hold then I stick to what I said. If you're combining that in then you're just looking at your immediate family's net worth.
Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2012, 11:08:31 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 25, 2012, 11:01:20 AM
But my point is that I own wealth I already got from my parents and this, coupled with what I earned myself, puts me in top 1%.
If this refers to what your parents currently hold then I stick to what I said. If you're combining that in then you're just looking at your immediate family's net worth.
No, I told you already that's not what I am talking about. I got help from my parents to buy and furnish my old flat (which now I own and as it has no mortgage on it, it adds to my net equity).
Why does everyone care so much about whether or not Marty is in the top 1% of Poles by income or wealth?
All I know is he was too poor to pay for all our drinks when we met, so he can't be doing all that well.
Quote from: Martinus on July 25, 2012, 10:35:32 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 25, 2012, 10:33:26 AM
What Marty doesn't understand is that the point of aristocracy is that you are aren't supposed to work for your money. To do so is dishonorable.
Tell this to families like Romneys or Bushes.
I don't have to. They don't live in the type of society like the Kingdom of France.
Quote from: Berkut on July 25, 2012, 11:13:28 AM
Why does everyone care so much about whether or not Marty is in the top 1% of Poles by income or wealth?
All I know is he was too poor to pay for all our drinks when we met, so he can't be doing all that well.
I'm not poor. I'm stingy. I really dislike spending my cash. I feel safe when I can look at my bank accounts' summary and see a six-figure amount there. :Embarrass:
Quote from: Berkut on July 25, 2012, 11:13:28 AM
Why does everyone care so much about whether or not Marty is in the top 1% of Poles by income or wealth?
As Neil pointed out eons ago in one of his few lucid posts, the only thing we really care about here is being right.
Quote from: Martinus on July 25, 2012, 11:10:53 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2012, 11:08:31 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 25, 2012, 11:01:20 AM
But my point is that I own wealth I already got from my parents and this, coupled with what I earned myself, puts me in top 1%.
If this refers to what your parents currently hold then I stick to what I said. If you're combining that in then you're just looking at your immediate family's net worth.
No, I told you already that's not what I am talking about. I got help from my parents to buy and furnish my old flat (which now I own and as it has no mortgage on it, it adds to my net equity).
Your "and this" threw me off. I thought that referred to the inheritance.
Quote from: Berkut on July 25, 2012, 11:13:28 AM
Why does everyone care so much about whether or not Marty is in the top 1% of Poles by income or wealth?
All I know is he was too poor to pay for all our drinks when we met, so he can't be doing all that well.
Yi got it right. I don't care anything about whether he is in the top 1% by either. :)
Quote from: Martinus on July 25, 2012, 11:16:08 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 25, 2012, 11:13:28 AM
Why does everyone care so much about whether or not Marty is in the top 1% of Poles by income or wealth?
All I know is he was too poor to pay for all our drinks when we met, so he can't be doing all that well.
I'm not poor. I'm stingy. I really dislike spending my cash. I feel safe when I can look at my bank accounts' summary and see a six-figure amount there. :Embarrass:
how much Berkut drinks, that it would put your account under 6 figure? :hmm:
Quote from: Martinus on July 25, 2012, 11:16:08 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 25, 2012, 11:13:28 AM
Why does everyone care so much about whether or not Marty is in the top 1% of Poles by income or wealth?
All I know is he was too poor to pay for all our drinks when we met, so he can't be doing all that well.
I'm not poor. I'm stingy. I really dislike spending my cash. I feel safe when I can look at my bank accounts' summary and see a six-figure amount there. :Embarrass:
Well I imagine that if we we all calculated our wealth in Eastern European funny money we'd have a lot more digits in our bank account. We only have Marty's word that he is wealthy and many of his other claims are suspect.
I guess some of us do care.
I for one don't really care how much someone makes, unless it's less than what I make.
Quote from: Martinus on July 25, 2012, 11:16:08 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 25, 2012, 11:13:28 AM
Why does everyone care so much about whether or not Marty is in the top 1% of Poles by income or wealth?
All I know is he was too poor to pay for all our drinks when we met, so he can't be doing all that well.
I'm not poor. I'm stingy. I really dislike spending my cash. I feel safe when I can look at my bank accounts' summary and see a six-figure amount there. :Embarrass:
Six figures? Poors. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Razgovory on July 25, 2012, 11:21:39 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 25, 2012, 11:16:08 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 25, 2012, 11:13:28 AM
Why does everyone care so much about whether or not Marty is in the top 1% of Poles by income or wealth?
All I know is he was too poor to pay for all our drinks when we met, so he can't be doing all that well.
I'm not poor. I'm stingy. I really dislike spending my cash. I feel safe when I can look at my bank accounts' summary and see a six-figure amount there. :Embarrass:
Well I imagine that if we we all calculated our wealth in Eastern European funny money we'd have a lot more digits in our bank account. We only have Marty's word that he is wealthy and many of his other claims are suspect.
No kidding. Martinus apparently feels safe with the whopping sum of $30,000 in his bank.
Where have we gone from a loner fuck mass killing in a Batman premiere to the size of Martinus' bank account, already?
Quote from: Drakken on July 25, 2012, 12:17:19 PM
Where have we gone from a loner fuck mass killing in a Batman premiere to the size of Martinus' bank account, already?
Should the latter ever be depleted, the risk of the former would increase. :D
Let's remember that even though Marti is in the top 1% of Polish people (by wealth, not by worthiness), he's still not a Westerner. By arguing about this, you're playing into his hands. Whenever he tries to bring up that he's got more money than most of his countrymen, a bright line must be drawn. He needs to know that the wealthiest Pole is no more a civilized person than the wealthiest gila lizard. Russian trash with a few coins to rub together is still Russian trash. Wealth isn't as important as proper behavior and ethnicity, and even the white trash who air their dirty laundry on Facebook are still better, more civilized people than him.
Don't give in to arguing on his terms. Remember what this is all about. It's not about him wanting to show that he's wealthier than Polish people. The whole point of this exercise is to try and trick you into thinking that he's your equal, or even your better. He's not.
Quote from: Neil on July 25, 2012, 01:28:59 PM
The whole point of this exercise is to try and trick you into thinking that he's your equal, or even your better. He's not.
Is anyone tricked by that? I mean he has the vulgarity to go flaunting about his money. How sad is that?
Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2012, 01:33:21 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 25, 2012, 01:28:59 PM
The whole point of this exercise is to try and trick you into thinking that he's your equal, or even your better. He's not.
Is anyone tricked by that? I mean he has the vulgarity to go flaunting about his money. How sad is that?
I find that terribly amusing.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 25, 2012, 02:06:16 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2012, 01:33:21 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 25, 2012, 01:28:59 PM
The whole point of this exercise is to try and trick you into thinking that he's your equal, or even your better. He's not.
Is anyone tricked by that? I mean he has the vulgarity to go flaunting about his money. How sad is that?
I find that terribly amusing.
Yes. Then again you're nuts.
Quote from: Martinus on July 25, 2012, 02:08:03 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 25, 2012, 02:06:16 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2012, 01:33:21 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 25, 2012, 01:28:59 PM
The whole point of this exercise is to try and trick you into thinking that he's your equal, or even your better. He's not.
Is anyone tricked by that? I mean he has the vulgarity to go flaunting about his money. How sad is that?
I find that terribly amusing.
Yes. Then again you're nuts.
So are you. Just because you and a few friends made a political stink doesn't mean that homosexuality is any less of a mental illness.
From my point of view, I am like a serf. Martinus may not be a duke or even an earl. But he is at least a knight.
This thread should be locked and deleted. And burnt. And then bombarded from outer space.
Quote from: Queequeg on July 25, 2012, 06:04:54 PM
This thread should be locked and deleted. And burnt. And then bombarded from outer space.
Why? What did I do now?
Quote from: Drakken on July 25, 2012, 12:17:19 PM
Where have we gone from a loner fuck mass killing in a Batman premiere to the size of Martinus' bank account, already?
Surprised it took as long as it did, actually.
Quote from: Monoriu on July 25, 2012, 05:55:50 PM
From my point of view, I am like a serf. Martinus may not be a duke or even an earl. But he is at least a knight.
You're more like a steward.
Moviegoers notice gun permit-holder with holster sitting in the theater. They call the police. The police arrive and frisk everybody. They threaten the permit-holder with death and arrest him.
http://www.courant.com/community/new-haven/hc-new-haven-gun-incident-0808-2-20120807,0,5258663.story (http://www.courant.com/community/new-haven/hc-new-haven-gun-incident-0808-2-20120807,0,5258663.story)
Quote from: Martinus on July 25, 2012, 11:05:39 AM
the poorest makes 1/20.
Is that me? It's me, isn't it?
Quote from: Phillip V on August 08, 2012, 08:50:41 AM
Moviegoers notice gun permit-holder with holster sitting in the theater. They call the police. The police arrive and frisk everybody. They threaten the permit-holder with death and arrest him.
http://www.courant.com/community/new-haven/hc-new-haven-gun-incident-0808-2-20120807,0,5258663.story (http://www.courant.com/community/new-haven/hc-new-haven-gun-incident-0808-2-20120807,0,5258663.story)
Competent performance from the New Haven PD - that is news.
Quote from: Phillip V on August 08, 2012, 08:50:41 AM
Moviegoers notice gun permit-holder with holster sitting in the theater. They call the police. The police arrive and frisk everybody. They threaten the permit-holder with death and arrest him.
http://www.courant.com/community/new-haven/hc-new-haven-gun-incident-0808-2-20120807,0,5258663.story (http://www.courant.com/community/new-haven/hc-new-haven-gun-incident-0808-2-20120807,0,5258663.story)
I don't see a problem. Not sure where he got off ignoring the police.
The police should not have been there in the first place, or at least not violently escalated the situation.
Now, if the middle-aged Asian man talking on his cellphone started making threatening movements, then fellow moviegoers should justifiably be afraid.
I would like to see the police called every time a gun permit-carrying citizen is carrying a gun.
Quote from: Phillip V on August 08, 2012, 09:40:03 AM
The police should not have been there in the first place, or at least not violently escalated the situation.
Hey, cop hating faggot bitch, read the fine print:
QuotePolice rushed to a Temple Street movie theater shortly after 10 p.m. Tuesday after receiving calls of an armed man in the theater.
When officers identified the armed man, they drew their weapons and ordered him to put his hands up. He did not comply with the officers' orders and remained in his seat while using his cell phone, police said.
Part of the problem with an armed I-spooge-over-my-2nd-Amendment-rights crowd: people with guns make other people, and police officers, nervous.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 08, 2012, 09:44:55 AM
Part of the problem with an armed I-spooge-over-my-2nd-Amendment-rights crowd: people with guns make other people, and police officers, nervous.
Indeed and I don't even like cops.
Quote from: garbon on August 08, 2012, 09:49:34 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 08, 2012, 09:44:55 AM
Part of the problem with an armed I-spooge-over-my-2nd-Amendment-rights crowd: people with guns make other people, and police officers, nervous.
Indeed and I don't even like cops.
Me neither.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 08, 2012, 09:44:55 AM
Quote from: Phillip V on August 08, 2012, 09:40:03 AM
The police should not have been there in the first place, or at least not violently escalated the situation.
Hey, cop hating faggot bitch, read the fine print:
QuotePolice rushed to a Temple Street movie theater shortly after 10 p.m. Tuesday after receiving calls of an armed man in the theater.
When officers identified the armed man, they drew their weapons and ordered him to put his hands up. He did not comply with the officers' orders and remained in his seat while using his cell phone, police said.
Part of the problem with an armed I-spooge-over-my-2nd-Amendment-rights crowd: people with guns make other people, and police officers, nervous.
LAWL. And gun-brandishing screaming cops did not obviously make this sitting guy nervous? :lmfao:
He was Asian. Nobody can know what they think or feel, if anything.
It isn't that hard to comply with the police. :mellow:
Besides, while you can, if you bring a gun to a movie theater after a widely publicized shooting, you are asking for trouble.
If more people had been shooting guns at the Aurora theater that night less people would have been hurt.
Quote from: Phillip V on August 08, 2012, 10:06:50 AM
LAWL. And gun-brandishing screaming cops did not obviously make this sitting guy nervous? :lmfao:
Apparently not nervous enough to ignore them and keep talking on the phone. What a putz.
Quote from: garbon on August 08, 2012, 10:10:57 AM
It isn't that hard to comply with the police. :mellow:
It's hard to for people to uniformly "comply" in surprise high-stress dangerous situations; ever read cases of police killing unarmed civilians "by accident"?
In any case, hopefully there is a lawsuit, and then we can see in court if "making people nervous" is a justifiable defense.
Quote from: Phillip V on August 08, 2012, 10:15:53 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 08, 2012, 10:10:57 AM
It isn't that hard to comply with the police. :mellow:
It's hard to for people to uniformly "comply" in surprise high-stress dangerous situations; ever read cases of police killing unarmed civilians "by accident"?
In any case, hopefully there is a lawsuit, and then we can see in court if "making people nervous" is a justifiable defense.
if he can't handle the "stress" of complying to a simple command then he doesn't deserve a gun permit.
Quote from: Phillip V on August 08, 2012, 10:15:53 AM
In any case, hopefully there is a lawsuit, and then we can see in court if "making people nervous" is a justifiable defense.
I really wish I had the opportunity to curb hop your ass in the back of a wagon. I really do.
Quote from: Phillip V on August 08, 2012, 10:15:53 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 08, 2012, 10:10:57 AM
It isn't that hard to comply with the police. :mellow:
It's hard to for people to uniformly "comply" in surprise high-stress dangerous situations; ever read cases of police killing unarmed civilians "by accident"?
In any case, hopefully there is a lawsuit, and then we can see in court if "making people nervous" is a justifiable defense.
Any reason why it shouldn't? A crazy person shoots up a theater full of people ,there is talk for weeks of possible copy cat crazies, and this guy walked into a theater with a gun. That the gun was legal wasn't necessarily enough to make anybody around him more comfortable. Did he say, "hey everybody, don't worry, I have a permit for this?" Probably not. Did he tell the cops he had a permit? He was talking on his phone. There are a lot of ways this could have worked out better, both for the cops, and this guy. But it wasn't the cops alone who were to blame.
I like the comments too. People nervous about a guy with a gun in a tight space were 'sheeple'.
Quote from: PDH on August 08, 2012, 10:14:00 AM
If more people had been shooting guns at the Aurora theater that night less people would have been hurt.
Probably not, since the guy doing the shooting was covered head to toe in Kevlar. A few more people with guns would have just led to more shooting victims, most likely.
Cops should have shot him just for talking on a phone in a theater. Inconsiderate ass.
Quote from: HVC on August 08, 2012, 10:21:59 AM
Cops should have shot him just for talking on a phone in a theater. Inconsiderate ass.
The movie had not started yet.
Stop defending him :P
Quote from: Phillip V on August 08, 2012, 10:15:53 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 08, 2012, 10:10:57 AM
It isn't that hard to comply with the police. :mellow:
It's hard to for people to uniformly "comply" in surprise high-stress dangerous situations; ever read cases of police killing unarmed civilians "by accident"?
In any case, hopefully there is a lawsuit, and then we can see in court if "making people nervous" is a justifiable defense.
I don't know of many cases where high stress equaled chatting on your cell phone ignoring the police. Besides, if he didn't want hassle, don't bring a visible gun to a movie theater after a shooting.
Quote from: garbon on August 08, 2012, 10:44:03 AM
Quote from: Phillip V on August 08, 2012, 10:15:53 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 08, 2012, 10:10:57 AM
It isn't that hard to comply with the police. :mellow:
It's hard to for people to uniformly "comply" in surprise high-stress dangerous situations; ever read cases of police killing unarmed civilians "by accident"?
In any case, hopefully there is a lawsuit, and then we can see in court if "making people nervous" is a justifiable defense.
I don't know of many cases where high stress equaled chatting on your cell phone ignoring the police. Besides, if he didn't want hassle, don't bring a visible gun to a movie theater after a shooting.
Some people react to surprise and fear by freezing/continuing their current action. I doubt he was actually having a conversation or talking lollipops while screaming men were pointing guns at him
Yeah. It's the law-abiding citizen's fault. If the police didn't want a hassle, they should have... If the miniskirt-wearing woman didn't want to get harassed, she should have...
Quote from: Phillip V on August 08, 2012, 10:59:53 AM
Some people react to surprise and fear by freezing/continuing their current action. I doubt he was actually having a conversation or talking lollipops while screaming men were pointing guns at him
Yeah. It's the law-abiding citizen's fault. If the police didn't want a hassle, they should have... If the miniskirt-wearing woman didn't want to get harassed, she should have...
:lol:
On that I think we're done.
Quote from: Phillip V on August 08, 2012, 10:59:53 AM
Yeah. It's the law-abiding citizen's fault. If the police didn't want a hassle, they should have... If the miniskirt-wearing woman didn't want to get harassed, she should have...
Not a law-abiding citizen. Gun-wielding lunatic.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 08, 2012, 10:19:34 AM
Quote from: Phillip V on August 08, 2012, 10:15:53 AM
In any case, hopefully there is a lawsuit, and then we can see in court if "making people nervous" is a justifiable defense.
I really wish I had the opportunity to curb hop your ass in the back of a wagon. I really do.
I wish you did too. :(
"Lemme see your hands!"
*fish through wallet* "How about you take a look at my permit first?"
Phil, part of the reason they make you apply for a permit is to try to weed out dickweeds like this who are almost definitely going to create a hostile situation. If the guy's going to deal with cops by ignoring their orders, I wouldn't exactly call it a sure bet that letting this guy hang onto the gun is a safe or smart move. Hope his permit gets revoked.