Hot Fudge Advice

[higgs1634]

Glad I had my earphone/plugs, and I just bought another Radio Shack Analog Sound Pressure meter to teach a few bar owners about responsible volume levels. I'm going to print out the OSHA regulations as well...heh. I will suffer NO more bludgeoning abuse by deaf or inexperienced sound guys!

That's great Gannon. I bet those business owners are really going to appreciate you, your mechanical contraption and the unsolicited advice you'll be giving.

How has that guy not been the recipient of a serious beat down?

[Doctor Detroit]

If I were his financial advisor, I would suggest taking any spare coin that might be used for things like another Radio Shack Analog Sound Pressure meter and putting it instead towards not getting evicted this time.

[The Beav]

Glad I had my earphone/plugs, and I just bought another Radio Shack Analog Sound Pressure meter to teach a few bar owners about responsible volume levels. I'm going to print out the OSHA regulations as well...heh. I will suffer NO more bludgeoning abuse by deaf or inexperienced sound guys!

That's great Gannon. I bet those business owners are really going to appreciate you, your mechanical contraption and the unsolicited advice you'll be giving.

How has that guy not been the recipient of a serious beat down?

Replace "retarded" with "Asperger's" and you have your answer.

[frank - up in grand blanc]

-Repay money that you owe
-If you do not repay, do not get caught coming out of a liquor store
-Avoid people carrying big sticks if you are delinquint in your debts & are planning a trip to the liquor store

Man taken to emergency room after being hit with big stick in an argument over money
By Kristin Longley | Flint Journal
March 11, 2010, 8:07AM
FLINT, Michigan — A man was taken to the emergency room after police said he was hit by a large stick after arguing with another man over money.

At about 9 p.m. on Tuesday, police said the two men were arguing about money the victim owed the suspect outside of a store on the 4000 block of N. Saginaw St. in Flint.

The victim went into the store and, when he came out, was hit over the head with a big stick, police said.

He was taken to the emergency room in fair condition.

[guest]

I'm pretty sure I've commented about my "saving a snapping turtle" story already. The point of all these stories is, "snapping turtles are not very grateful".

Never ask one for a blowjob. Just sayin'.

[The Notorious R.E.D]

I'm pretty sure I've commented about my "saving a snapping turtle" story already. The point of all these stories is, "snapping turtles are not very grateful".

Never ask one for a blowjob. Just sayin'.

unless you're into that sort of thing

[Norm Abrams]

I'm pretty sure I've commented about my "saving a snapping turtle" story already. The point of all these stories is, "snapping turtles are not very grateful".

Never ask one for a blowjob. Just sayin'.

unless you're into that sort of thing

Teeth, when used properly, can increase pleasure.

[guest]

I'm pretty sure I've commented about my "saving a snapping turtle" story already. The point of all these stories is, "snapping turtles are not very grateful".

Never ask one for a blowjob. Just sayin'.

unless you're into that sort of thing

Teeth, when used properly, can increase pleasure.

Vice-like beaks, not so much.

[Norm Abrams]

I'm pretty sure I've commented about my "saving a snapping turtle" story already. The point of all these stories is, "snapping turtles are not very grateful".

Never ask one for a blowjob. Just sayin'.

unless you're into that sort of thing

Teeth, when used properly, can increase pleasure.

Vice-like beaks, not so much.

This is one of those situations where I don't need to try it first to know it would be a bad idea.

[Roquefort Robert]

I'm pretty sure I've commented about my "saving a snapping turtle" story already. The point of all these stories is, "snapping turtles are not very grateful".

Never ask one for a blowjob. Just sayin'.

unless you're into that sort of thing

Teeth, when used properly, can increase pleasure.

A classic:
http://www.break.com/usercontent/2007/9/Blow-Job-Girl-HOT-FUNNY-DRY-360178.html

[Doctor Detroit]

Today, 08:24 PM
pontiac4ever
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 29
Warning to black males in Oakland County

Whatever you do try your best to avoid the Oakland County judicial system. They will take the word of a white woman over the word of a black male and the police. They live by the Rumsfeld credo that "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence." I experienced first hand that even if you have a clean record, police evidence contradicting the white woman's statements, character references from county commissioners, Pontiac Policemen, School board members and school administrators the Oakland County judicial will take the word of white women over all that evidence when it comes to dealing with black men. A wise man once said "A person who represents himself has a fool for a client" and i learned today that no truer words were ever spoken.

Always get a lawyer.

[frank - up in grand blanc]

Today, 08:24 PM
pontiac4ever
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 29
Warning to black males in Oakland County

Whatever you do try your best to avoid the Oakland County judicial system. They will take the word of a white woman over the word of a black male and the police. They live by the Rumsfeld credo that "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence." I experienced first hand that even if you have a clean record, police evidence contradicting the white woman's statements, character references from county commissioners, Pontiac Policemen, School board members and school administrators the Oakland County judicial will take the word of white women over all that evidence when it comes to dealing with black men. A wise man once said "A person who represents himself has a fool for a client" and i learned today that no truer words were ever spoken.

Always get a lawyer.

Good God, what in the fuck was this? A replay of To Kill a Mocking Bird? Probably just a traffic accident, and how would those character references read: "Bill would never speed or disregard a traffic signal." Also, the guys in the legal profession enlighten me: are character references "evidence"? I'm guessing that they're impressionistic bullshit that a judge/jury can regard or disregard at will?

[David Hall]

Oh man, Frank, that's a big question. In a criminal case there are a million slight nuances in the character witness game.

A defendant can call a character witness to testify to a trait relevant to the crime for which he is charged: IE: Dwayne is a peaceful man and I've never known him to lie to people." In this example the witness may not testify to specific instances where the defendant has acted "honestly" but may only testify to his "reputation' for truthfulness.

Specific acts of the defendant are not admissible to prove that he acted in conformity with those acts for which he is charged: IE: "Dwayne masturbated outside my window last week" cannot be used to prove that Dwayne masturbated outside my window today. However, it may be used as evidence to prove the identity of Dwayne in the second incident, to establish his motive, to prove intent, etc.

However, if the defendant calls a character witness to testify that Dwayne is honest, the prosecution may question that witness by asking him about specific instances where Dwayne was dishonest: IE "did you know that Dwayne was busted for lying to a cop last year." It's a dangerous game for the defense to start bringing character witnesses forward, because that defendant's specific acts of misconduct ordinarily would not be admissible, but now they may be used to impeach that witness. (in the process probably influencing the jury about the defendant's character as well.)

"Dwayne would never speed and disregard a traffic signal" would be inadmissable to prove that Bill stopped at that traffic signal because a person's "good" character is not relevant to whether or not he may have run a red light.

However, if a witness could testify "I watch dwayne stop at that light EVERY DAY at 4 pm and he always stops for 10 seconds" this may be relevant to prove that he always stops at that light. If witness testifies to a strict routine or habit of the defendant it may become relevant to prove that he did not do it on that day. In order to do so, there must be a pretty well established pattern that Dwayne always stopped at the light.

Just finished my second bar exam in two years, so this is probably as fresh as this stuff will ever be for me.

[ldodger]

Oh man, Frank, that's a big question. In a criminal case there are a million slight nuances in the character witness game.

A defendant can call a character witness to testify to a trait relevant to the crime for which he is charged: IE: Dwayne is a peaceful man and I've never known him to lie to people." In this example the witness may not testify to specific instances where the defendant has acted "honestly" but may only testify to his "reputation' for truthfulness.

Specific acts of the defendant are not admissible to prove that he acted in conformity with those acts for which he is charged: IE: "Dwayne masturbated outside my window last week" cannot be used to prove that Dwayne masturbated outside my window today. However, it may be used as evidence to prove the identity of Dwayne in the second incident, to establish his motive, to prove intent, etc.

However, if the defendant calls a character witness to testify that Dwayne is honest, the prosecution may question that witness by asking him about specific instances where Dwayne was dishonest: IE "did you know that Dwayne was busted for lying to a cop last year." It's a dangerous game for the defense to start bringing character witnesses forward, because that defendant's specific acts of misconduct ordinarily would not be admissible, but now they may be used to impeach that witness. (in the process probably influencing the jury about the defendant's character as well.)

"Dwayne would never speed and disregard a traffic signal" would be inadmissable to prove that Bill stopped at that traffic signal because a person's "good" character is not relevant to whether or not he may have run a red light.

However, if a witness could testify "I watch dwayne stop at that light EVERY DAY at 4 pm and he always stops for 10 seconds" this may be relevant to prove that he always stops at that light. If witness testifies to a strict routine or habit of the defendant it may become relevant to prove that he did not do it on that day. In order to do so, there must be a pretty well established pattern that Dwayne always stopped at the light.

Just finished my second bar exam in two years, so this is probably as fresh as this stuff will ever be for me.

I think "Dwayne" (at the other table) could have used your assistance earlier today.