eym_sirius

I'm batchin' it tonight. Just hangin' around PCOM like a lot of you. Sooooooo ---- I hear somebody at my front door - with a key! Trying to get in! Startling!! I go to the door, turn on the porch light and there's a beautiful woman trying to get in my front door. And --- she's drunk. I mean -- really drunk! She was out "walking the dog" -- a great big dog - and found herself at the wrong house. This hardly ever happens! She lives right up the street and I pointed her in the right direction.

Exactly! And that's a good illustration of why people should pretty much mind their own business, if they don't know the whole story. Taking pictures of ay-double-dollar-signs-umed violators is just a little obsessive, to me.

It is karma, but it's bad Karma, the b*tch of which would be all over GD for acting on his concept of vengeance. GD is so ignorant of Karma that he didn't even recognize the self-contradiction. He was just talking out his ay-double-dollar-signs.

Were your Wal-Mart shennanigans funded by advertising? I noticed an ad on the flip side of the Mr. Whipple sign......

It could be a great big yellowjacket nest! Just remember that people who win the Darwin Award often share something in common : Their last words are often, "Watch THIS!"

To the OP: This is good advice! You need proof of the dirty talk and of you telling them that it is unwelcome. Tell them that from the start and then if they continue, it's harrassment. If it's not documented, it didn't happen.

I think that I bought mine at Wal-Mart.. That was about 10 years ago, though.

It's a great idea, A.L.! I'd love to get back into shape! I have to come to the same level of commitment that you have come to. If you get a group together, I may be able to do stuff from time to time. I'm really glad that you posted this - I have a friend from childhood who I just heard is going to have to undergo quadruple bypass surgery. So I need to have this conversation with myself on a regular basis: Me: Let's get some exercise! Me2: I'm too busy - got too many things on my plate right now. Me: How about death? How does that fit into your busy schedule? Or a stroke - you kno

I think that I heard today that they found two more.

So did anyone go to the trivia thing? Was I right? Did the winner win a lottery ticket?

If they don't have other reasons, then the comment is pretty irresponsible. The result could be that the public might disregard potentially suspect behavior if it is not a public servant's behavior that is in question. And they might call into question routine behaviors from public officials (a policeman was cruising slowly down a back alley). Who doesn't know that tracing a call takes a few minutes and to avoid detection you buy a disposable cell phone and pay with cash for it and that you make the call from a very public place where there are hundreds of other calls taking place at the s

I read it differently, Mark. I read it as "if you win, you win a CHANCE to win 500K". There's a subtle-wording, but important distinction to be made between "you win" and "you CAN win". That's my interpretation. There's no catch, in that it is POSSIBLE to win 500K. The winner could win a lottery ticket which has a big prize of 500K. Does that make sense?

I'd err on the side of caution. I'd go see the doctor now, in the event that it is a symptom of a bigger problem.

I was thinking the same thing, Subby!

I disagree to this extent. There's a prohibition of guns in courtrooms. This law does serve to prevent criminals from having guns in this arena, there's no doubt. A criminal with evil intent could certainly try, but the risk is too great. This is where the issue lies regarding gun laws - To a criminal, is it worth the risk? Regarding background checks, if a person has a violent past, then he should never be able to own a gun. If a person has a mental illness of a certain variety (to be determined by health professionals), then he should not be able to own a gun. This doesn't mean that he

Nitro - You're putting the blame for recidivism on the judges who impose sentences. It's an issue with too many dynamics to point a single finger! The judge can only impose the sentence. He does not have a say in whether the inmate is paroled! The judge can only impose the sentence allowed by law. Lawmakers aren't going to spend a whole lot of time on prison reform and on making violent crimes punishable by longer sentences - Know why? There's no money in it! Since nowadays lawmakers sell their votes to the highest bidder, that's where they spend their time - with their hands out. You

LPPT - You are so smart! I think that you don't get enough credit for your wisdom.

These are your prejudices. And prejudices are a form of a lie because you're miscategorizing people and their opinions with no regard for facts, also known as "the truth". So in your little world, even when Obama and you are on the same page, his position is flawed because you find it unworkable. Now, if you have facts, then that's a different matter. How about statistics to show how the judicial system "slaps the hands" of convicted felons (violent crimes, guns, etc to stay on the subject).?

Teacher: "Johnny - what is the significance of Pi R Squared" Johnny: "It ain't" Teacher: "I'm sorry, did you say, "It ain't" Johnny: "Yes'm " Teacher: "Why do you say that?" Johnny: "Cause everyone knows that pi r round - cornbread r squared!"

That's not the point of making laws and enforcing them. Surely you're not against background checks! Who would oppose making sure that a gun that is in the possession of a citizen has been legally obtained? A person in possession of an illegal weapon - an automatic weapon or a surface-to-air missle launcher, for instance - goes to jail! Are you opposed to that? For a convicted felon (violent crime) a weapon may not be in that person's possession. Would you like to see that law disappear? Remember, we're talking about an article written by the President supporting the rights of citize

In the first place, your post is completely off the topic. It has NOTHING to do with the President having written an op-ed piece that talks of the SANCTITY of gun ownership - a point that was mistaken or prejudged by the OP as infringing on gun ownership. You didn't even speak to this issue, which has the President coming out on the side of gun owners. Do you support his being on the side of gun owners? Or not? Stay on the topic. Secondly, you know NOTHING about the oil business. Oil drilled off the shores of the USA does NOT go to the United States!! It's not "our" oil!! It goes into a (s

This story is not about "the left" and it's not about removing guns from the hands of law abiding citizens. Before commenting on this, did ANY of you actually read the statement from the President? Or are you making assumptions just based on the headlines? This IS about enforcement of BACKGROUND CHECKS to see that there is universal confomity in the application of THIS PARTICULAR LAW on BACKGROUND CHECKS. From the President's op-ed piece: http://azstarnet.com/article_011e7118-8951-5206-a878-39bfbc9dc89d.html ["Now, like the majority of Americans, I believe that the Second Amendm

I would only report this to the office manager for the purpose of notifying her that you won't be paying for the office visit. Not even if it's covered by insurance. You might want to call insurance to make sure that you don't get billed for this. Certainly it was not just a bad day, if the doctor is making recommendations for surgery without having viewed the patient's chart. Absolutely change doctors! Just think - the doctor could be performing a surgical procedure when he's having a "bad day".

You're right. It's a mistake to draw conclusions by looking at headlines or titles without reading for comprehension. Teacher: "News-Junky, would you tell the class about your reading assignment, "Of Mice and Men"? News-Junky: "It was about --- small rodents and human adult males?"

Do know the politics of every management person in every company that you support with your customer dollars? If you're a man, do you shop at men's wearhouse, even though the CEO spokesman is an open proponent and contributor to organizations that seek to abolish laws against recreational drug use, including esctasy (assuming that you're against illegal drug use)? How about Progressive Insurance (the CEO, not Flo!) for a similar reason? Do you really have to know the politics of higher-ups in every business before you spend your money there? How about their criminal history, do you kno