Wishfire

It's a poor quality video but when I look at it - it seems like it was edited when he takes his arm back and then when he moves his arm forward - you can't really see if he has anything in his hand at that time - sort of like how they throw in stunt doubles in film - they do it so fast you don't usually see the switch (sometimes you do).

They're professional soldiers, not professional actors. Going through the video frame by frame, it's obvious he threw something. Whether alive or dead (or a stuffed toy), that's not so obvious. But if it's a stuffed animal (and I'm not talking taxidermy), that's one hell of a fake... especially in Iraq.

My wife knows William B. Davis. AKA Cancer Man from the X-Files.

There's 50 million people living on the moon."

 

Um, no there aren't.

I believe that Riker says that in his time there are 50 million living on the moon. Was it said in any Trek episode that the moon was uninhabited in the 24th century?

No, it wasn't. But Riker also went on to say that several cities would be visible "on a day like this." And the video clearly shows that every other time we see the moon, there are no visible structures, never mind cities.

"But he wasn't the only one who changed his mind."

 

Maybe Wesley wore the uniform just for the wedding?

In the script and deleted scene it did say that Wes was back in Starfleet. The thing that gets me is that some people can't accept that maybe he changed his mind during the almost 10 years that had passed between when Wes went with the Traveller (2370) and when Nemesis took place (2379).

It's also possible that Wesley never actually resigned his commission. His time with the Traveller could have been regarded by Starfleet as a "special assignment."

As far as i am concerned, this movie is a fake. The dog was not trying to run in the air, as it would do if it were thrown. Also, the dog doesn't move at all through the whole movie. and if you look after he throws it, as it is flying threw the air, it moves wrong. it goes end over end, instead of flying sideways, upways, downways, anyways... a real dog would move itself around quite a bit, not just stay still, especially if it was a puppy. Also, i can't see its eyes... to me, i think its fake.

 

Just how do you know how dogs move when they're flying through the air?

 

Dogs move a lot. I am not an animal person, but even I know this first hand. The dog does not move once in the whole video. That screams "fake" to me.

 

Maybe if I could see a higher res version of it, but youtube quality is just too low to tell anything.

Puppies being held by the scruff of their necks don't move a lot. In fact, they move as little as possible. If a puppy is being carried around by its mother, well... movement + mother's teeth = injury. This is true of many animals that get carried by their scruff... dogs, wolves, cats, etc.

As for after the throw, the puppy is tumbling end over end, so it's difficult to tell what other movements, if any, it's making.

Some people have WAY too much money.......

Then why's he flying a 60-year-old Piper?

You know, it's funny... I always thought it was a Scottish song...

As far as i am concerned, this movie is a fake. The dog was not trying to run in the air, as it would do if it were thrown. Also, the dog doesn't move at all through the whole movie. and if you look after he throws it, as it is flying threw the air, it moves wrong. it goes end over end, instead of flying sideways, upways, downways, anyways... a real dog would move itself around quite a bit, not just stay still, especially if it was a puppy. Also, i can't see its eyes... to me, i think its fake.

Just how do you know how dogs move when they're flying through the air?

For him to have a case, he'd have to first prove that global warming isn't happening. Or, at the very least, that it's not caused by human activity. Since there's no way for him to do that, he's just going to make himself into a laughing stock.

No, you don't but I'm sure you already know that.

 

Example

 

(Removed because quote boxes weren't working.)

Well, if that's not what you meant, then you should've clarified beforehand. Because that's what it looked like you were saying to me.

No, it's not that' the whole point. Sure the process of putting something on the ballot may be legal but what they're voting to put on the ballot isn't - thus it is a waste of money. Free Speech does not mean the taxpayer has to foot the bill.

Since the taxpayer doesn't foot the bill, you protestations are irrelevant.

Instead, even small local bars made enough money to build out-door rain-proof smoking patios. Go figure.

Some did, but not all. And we did learn an important lesson:

 

When you are drunk and want a cigarette you don't care if it rains.

The lesson I learned was... "No matter what the forecast, bring a jacket. If it rains... it'll make a good umbrella.

Many people predicted that California bars would head in the same direction when our bar smoking ban went into effect.

Instead, even small local bars made enough money to build out-door rain-proof smoking patios. Go figure.

WFO, you have an amazing ability to put recharacterize what I said to something I did not say.

I take your words at face value. If you mean something other than what you say, then make it clear.

If people are displeased with Bush - then let them pursue whatever legal options are available to them - including petitioning their elected officials to investigate any potention reasons for impeachment. But to waste the taxpayers time and money to make a "personal" statement that lacks legal authority is not one of those options.

Whether or not you like it, the method they chose is legal. So they did persue a legal option.

Individuals do not pay for printing of ballots or costs associated with the voting process - these are paid by the taxpayer.

They don't pay the direct cost, no. But once they get enough signatures, they do have to pay a fee to get the measure on to the ballot. That fee is supposed to go to paying the cost of the additional measure on the ballot. If none of that fee goes to it, then it's not the people trying to get the measure on the ballot who waste the tax payer's money, but some bureaucrat.

Filing a case is a waste of taxpayer dollars? Not if there is a legal basis for the case. If there's not, the party bringing the case has paid the court costs and there is potential for fines against lawyers and/or parties bringng baselss cases though I don't know how often they are used.

Court costs do not pay for everything. Tax payers pick up the slack.

The bottom line is it is not my responsibility as a taxpayer to pay for someone's political statements - that's their responsibility.

Yes. And they're taking it. Not you.

What are we going to do - every time a different party takes the white house tie up our courts with lawsuits against the party you don't like. So every four years one half of the country will be at odds with the other.

And when has this ever happened?

Regardless of whether he deserved it the move to impeach Clinton was more political than actual concern for what he did (as most of the people leading the charge were guilty of the same thing) and I found it outrageous the amount of money wasted on that - I view the impeach Bush movement as the same. And at the rate we're going it'll probably happen again with the next president as well. Presidents should be impeached for breaking the law - not because the people that didn't vote for them want them out of office.

I'd say that there's a huge difference between being impeached for sexual impropriety / being charged with perjury and being impeached for war crimes, political misconduct, and god knows what else.

It's a waste of taxpayer money (which IMO is criminal) if it lacks any legal basis.

How is it a waste of taxpayer money when it's the responsibility of the person/group/organization who initiates a petition to pay the costs?

And yes it is ridiculous for the "town" to make a political statement. Government bodies should be apolitical - if a group of private citizens wanted to file a case and make a political statement that is a different situation.

Yes, they should be apolitical... but they rarely if ever are. Besides, filing a case would be the true waste of taxpayer dollars.

What are we going to do - every time a different party takes the white house tie up our courts with lawsuits against the party you don't like. So every four years one half of the country will be at odds with the other.

And when has this ever happened? When was it even suggested?

If there is anything this country needs it is less devisiveness and some common ground andto stop wasting taxpayer money

So people who are displeased with Bush should just shut up? What, they have no rights to take actions they deem necessary (so long as those actions are legal)?

So because something is illegal people trying to legalize it should not be allowed to get a measure on the ballot? That's the one of the very purposes of petitions!

Well, that's how things work... you get enough signatures on a petition, you get the issue on the ballot. You think this is the first stupid thing on a ballot?

Federal funds should be pulled from a town for making a political statement? Now that's ridiculous. Doubly so considering that not everyone went along with it, so you're advocating pushing all for the actions of few.

 

Angry backlash to video of Marine throwing puppy

Richard Maxton with AAP

 

4/03/2008 4:30:00 PM.

 

VIDEO: WARNING DISTURBING FOOTAGE: YouTube video of Marine throwing puppy off cliff

 

There has been strong global backlash to an internet video that shows a US Marine throwing a puppy off a cliff in.

 

The video shows two Marines joking while one holds up a black and white puppy, which he then hurls into a ravine.

 

Military officials are investigating the video. Major Chris Perrine of the Marine Corps Base Hawaii says it appears the man is part of a unit based in the islands.

 

Marine officials have called the YouTube video "shocking and deplorable" saying it violates "the high standard we expect of every Marine"

 

Users of the video share website have also condemned the video.

 

There has been a flood of angry comments to the YouTube page, with some users posting one of the Marine's name and home address, urging people to protest at his house.

 

Warning: The attached video contains highly disturbing footage.

Source.

This kind of crap makes me sick. What kind of low-life scum would even think to do something like this?! I hope this guy and his buddies get the strictest possible punishment.

^^ That used to be my sig at Nexus.

That should tell you something... AIM is a virus!

Okay, so why does he send it to a daycare?

Monkees Control Robot Legs--With Their Minds!

Didn't the Monkees die? Or at least part ways?

Runaway lawnmower kills monk

This would be hilarious if it weren't so tragic.

Just because I enjoy nit-picking... from the top!

"I bet Jim Kirk himself hauled the ol' gal outta mothballs to come lookin' for me!"

Since he had spent the last 70 or so years stuck in a transporter buffer, I bet he also that "the ol' gal" was the 1701... no bloody A, B, C, or D.

"Can he breathe?"

First of all, what does the kid mean by this? Does he mean "Does he inhale atmosphere so that his circulatory system can deliver oxygen throughout all his internal tissues?" Or does he mean "Does he go through the motions?" Chances are, he means the first one, which would mean he's wondering whether or not Data would drown. Which means that Picard was correct when he said that Data doesn't breathe. Also, if the clip from "Birthright" hadn't been cut short, we would've heard Data said that his "breathing" was a method of keeping is internal temperature steady. Something which would probably work just as well with water rather than air.

"I did not have enough bouyancy to get back to the surface."

Well, we did see him walking along the bottom of the lake...

"If Data is bulletproof why is he afraid of this 19th century gun?"

Funny, he doesn't look afraid. If anything, he's more concerned with the fact that if he made any sudden movements, Twain might shoot someone else.

"Also he shouldn't be vulnerable to wooden arrows."

No one ever said that the bullets didn't penetrate into his body. We just know that they weren't capable of doing any significant damage.

"I've never kissed you with a beard before!"

Their relationship had ended years before. Suddenly he shows up feeling amorous. She made an excuse to get him out of her quarters.

"Notice how Picard finds this private artifact and just throws it away and leaves it there."

First of all, he had just lost his family. So the most important thing to him was his family album.

Secondly, what's to say he never went back to the planet? I'm sure there's other stuff that he wanted back, as well. Such as the Mintakan cloth he received in "Who Watches the Watchers?" that he still had in ST:FC.

"The Emotion Chip..."

This seems to be two simultaneous errors... one being the size and shape of the chip, the other being where it gets plugged into Data. But remember, when Data got it back from Lore at the end of "Descent, Pt. II," the chip had been damaged. Any repairs may have very well altered its configuration, which would explain both discontinuities.

"Trilithium?"

Yeah, that one's a blatant discontinuity.

"The Emotion Chip, Part II"

The emotion chip was originally irreparably damaged. Well, they managed to fix it. So even though it got fused to Data's neural net, they couldn't later figure out how to unfuse it? Not to mention figuring out how to give Data direct access to it?

"The warp coil."

Riker says the warp coil was invented in the 22nd century. We see the Phoenix launch in the 21st century? Discontinuity? Hardly. We don't know for a fact that warp speed is impossible without the warp coil. Besides, maybe warp coils were responsible for the creation of the Warp 5 engine in Enterprise.

Of course, Riker did say "before there was warp drive..."

"There's 50 million people living on the moon."

Um, no there aren't.

"Obsolete in the New Order."

When Locutus says that Data will be obsolete, he's talking about Data's technology. When the Borg Queen called Data her equal, she's talking about his mind. Two different things. Beside, she was just using him to get computer control. She may have intended to dispose of him afterwards, since he would no longer be of any use to her.

"Projections suggest that a Borg ship like this one could continue to function effectively even if 78% of it was inoperable."

Key words... projections suggest. Plus those projections don't take into account any Achille's Heels.

"Our best shot barely scratched the surface."

Notice, in "Q, Who?" the holes left by their best shots were completely gone about 15 minutes later...

"Money doesn't exist in the 24th century."

This is a problem that spans almost every Trek series.

"Data's mother tells him about his brothers but says they all died except for Lore and Data."

Her exact words were "your Father lost several prototypes before Lore." That doesn't mean they "died." It may mean that there were flaws in the prototypes technology that result is a limit in what they could accomplish, so they were deactivated so Soong could start again from scratch.

"Was Picard bald at the academy?"

I have no hair in this picture. Does that mean that I'm bald? No, it just means I shaved my head once. Likewise, since we see Picard with hair at a time when he's about to graduate, obviously, no, he was not bald, either.

"An ambassador who will go Targ hunting with me!"

So, what... because Worf was an ambassador, Riker and Troi would suddenly decide to keep him off the guest list to their wedding?

"But he wasn't the only one who changed his mind."

Maybe Wesley wore the uniform just for the wedding?

"How many decks does this ship have?!"

Who cares, as long as it doesn't have 76 decks like the Ent-A did.

"That's a big pit under Deck 29..."

Except the fight took place on deck 14 according to a turbolift door, if I remember correctly. What, did you think the Remans would just sit around on Deck 29 waiting for security to get there?

"Have you completely recovered from your experience with the Borg?"

Most people do think they've recovered from traumatic experiences soon after, only to learn something else further down the line.

"I will not grow old."

His appearance may change, but that doesn't mean much. Consider the 500 year age difference between his head and his body...