John Adams

I'M ON THE LOVE TRAIN BABY. PEOPLE OF THE WORLD, JOIN HANDS. WOOOOOOOooooooooooooooooo

That's what everyone always says about me.

I just wondered if you were posting because you think there was a time when cops were above this. Police officers are human and certainly prone to overreact. God knows if I had someone screaming in my face for an entire shift, I might cross-check her too. That doesn't make it right, but it happens. If you're respectful to a police officer, you usually get respect back. If not, and you draw an over-reaction, you shouldn't whine about it AND the police officer should get in trouble.

Is your point that this kind of thing didn't used to happen or that this was a violation of some right?

Can this really be true? If so, it's sure to be withdrawn. Why would you alienate the world like that?

Couldn't it just be that the ability to predict outcomes with these types of injuries is beyond the current level of science? When all the early Everett articles were pouring in, I recall reading many times that predicting a person's ability to recover from a neck injury is hard to do.

They don't measure bounce until after the convention. Nice try.

Been posting here long? This little exchange is remarkably on topic 11 pages into a thread. Half the posts in this thread are yours. This dead horse seems pretty well beat for now, and I already posted several times when we were still on topic. I don't think I responded to you in any of those posts because I didn't read much or what you said until out here on page 10.

Tihs wkros too, but it deonst mkae it rghit wehn cmmicuonaintg wtih oehtrs. I fingered you because you're a serial abuser who may have an understanding of grammar rules. If you were just a short-buser like VABills, I would let your illiterate posts slide. (He was a Marine so he doesn't mind taking some shrapnel now and then.) Following rules of grammar--or at least trying to--shows respect and courtesy. Like looking a person in the eye when talking. Like dressing appropriately for a meeting. Like showing up on time. You don't have to do these things. You can be a real rebel and l33t speak it up all you want to if that's what makes you feel cool.

Sorry. I don't normally point out grammar errors. I have plenty. I hold people to this standard: try to communicate using your best understanding of grammar rules. Willful disregard of things like punctuation and capitalization, not to mention spelling, undermines your ability to communicate effectively. That's a fact.

Because message boards are not places to critique others?

By 9/09 according to the Bible.

I recommend elevating grammar and punctuation above metaphysics.

For me, the wing is merely the best method of delivering the sauce. I want as much sauce as possible. If someone gives me a dry wing (one not coated in sauce), I am one unhappy camper. This is why I prefer the finger to the wing--it holds lots more sauce in the breading. I agree RE hating restaurants that measure HOT in quantity of sauce, not spiciness of sauce. Also hate all wing sauces with other flavors: bourbon, sweet and spicy, Asian, cajun, etc. can all kiss my ass.

All income taxes. I am a big fan of use-based taxes. That way I have some say in how much of my money gets taken from me. If I buy a 70K BMW, I pay the man a lot of taxes. If I buy a used Accord, I pay less. As a compromise, I'd vomit but settle for a flat tax instead of the current mess of our income tax system.

I am a vegetarian (90% of the time) and I agree. The substitute I use is a breaded tofu thing that looks like a chicken finger. Then I use my own concoction of wing sauce (the one I created when I worked at Hometown Heroes in 1988--little shoutout to any Rochesterarians who ever went). My meat eating friends like it. No one (including me) would dare say it's as good as a chicken wing but most people admit it's tasty and not a terrible substitute. My secret to good wings (or wing-like substitutes) is a drenching sauce. I follow the Duff's model--and think that there should be sauce pooled in the bowl under the wings. Regarding the health of wings, let's see. Chicken skin. Deep fried. Stick of butter in the sauce (I add no butter to my sauce, but do load it up with Tabasco). Dip that deep into blue cheese dressing. Top it off with 0% health benefit celery. Of course it's !@#$ing bad for you! But it does taste good.

I pay them all. In anticipation of your next exciting query, even the local taxes. Even all the taxes for my 100 employees. And corporate taxes. And on and on. It's a long list. Rather than go to jail, I pay taxes. I also try to avoid as many taxes as it seems like the code allows. This is all really fun to talk about. Anything else you need to know before Chuck Wollery introduces us? Are you hoping to be the next John Walsh and catch a tax-evader?

Nope. I pay my taxes because I don't want to go to jail. Doesn't make it moral.

Sad that you think it's funny. You think your salary is $50,000/year? Try getting every dime of that for yourself. When they put you in shackles and throw you in jail, talk to me about how "free" you are.

Taking someone's money away just because they are productive is a form of slavery.

You continue to propose that metaphysics proves god because of prime mover/intelligent designer/first cause propositions. You also point out (without basis), that no one here knows anything about metaphysics. Perhaps the people who don't agree with you understand your arguments and refute your conclusions. Your argument for god follows Aquinas. All moving things were set in motion by some other moving thing. Tracing that chain of movers back means that there was at one point a "Prime Mover" that you call god. As I said before, any 10-year-old can understand that infinite regression puzzle. But the conclusion that your infinite regression lands on a prime mover, or god, is not necessarily correct. It is correct in the schema that you set up "All moving things were set in motion by another moving thing," but that does not mean the infinite regression lands on god. Your repeating it does not make it so.

One of the worst reads I subjected myself to in the last year was Letter to a Christian Nation. Though I agreed with most of its sentiment, it was as awful as the side he attacks.

What a news flash. Wings are bad for you. Go figure. And yet they taste good.

My post was self-effacing, as my blog is mental masturbation at its finest. I'll check those blogs. The only blog I regularly read is Rex Parker's NY Times crossword blog. http://rexwordpuzzle.blogspot.com/

I agree regarding his column. Not his blog. All blogs are painful to read.