Range_This11

This seems like a genuinely good idea. I'm not really into clans but hopefully those that are have a good time with them :-P

Let's reverse the roles. What would you do if an extremely well-figured woman stripped in front of you and a bunch of guys at a party? You'd oggle and stare just the same ;) Just delete him from Facebook and stop partying with him.

I agree with you that we need to learn more about ourselves, but that will not come from a revamping of the judicial system. The judicial system reacts to what the people believe is just. Laws are voted on and passed and twenty years later repealed. They are not designed to be cutting edge and it is not plausible for them to be so. And just so we're clear, pragmatic =/= stagnant as you seem to be implying. Idealism allows us to dream of a perfect world but pragmatism allows us to use the tools we are given to create the best possible situation for the largest amount of people. Medieval-style trials were only a representation of what the general population assumed to be just.

I'm not arguing that we should allow for mistakes to be made, but loopholes that the prosecution or defense can exploit to allow their client to go free or put another person's client behind bars will always exist. You're right, those are subjective terms, but we also have thousands if not millions of previous court cases (many of which are going to be similar to modern cases) to set precedence. We also have hundreds of years of experience using a judicial system. The courts are designed to benefit the most amount of people they possibly can. There are far too many variables in humans for any sort of judicial system to be perfect. It's at times like this where you have to take a pragmatic viewpoint instead of an idealistic viewpoint.

I will never buy a pair of earbuds again. Thanks to Ruerin's suggestion I had my Mother buy these bad boys for my birthday last year: http://www.amazon.com.....MS0XU If you are at all serious about listening to music, a pair of hi-fi headphones are a must!

Okay I sent you a PM. I called it first you snoot raptors!!!!!!

Once Google+ opens up, I'm deleting my Facebook. Facebook has really sucked since they introduced the Newsfeed.

Today I went to the A Perfect Circle concert and was front row for the whole show. They even debuted new music during the encore!!

Oh god what have you done................ CONGRATS!!! :thumbsup:

All you '04 cats stay out, this is the '07/'06 nostalgia thread!!!

As far as news organizations go, NPR at least presents the other side of the story and tries to keep their reporters and interviewers out of it.

There's more ass in that one pic than back. Cool tatt though.

Good point. I will just post what I said in the last thread: Absolute knowledge is impossible to attain, so we can go through the infinite regression of "Well it looks that way because of this!" Even if we had photographic evidence of her killing her daughter, it could have been photoshopped! Absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence. Also take into account the subjectivity behind "a reasonable doubt". That being said, how do we prove with 100% ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY that person A killed person B? I don't think we can. If humans are inherently flawed, then the systems of government, laws, and courts humans create must also be inherently flawed. To prove someone guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is to provide direct evidence or enough circumstantial evidence that all other possible outcomes become so outlandish that the story told by the prosecution is proven "beyond a reasonable doubt". Direct evidence is having a witness testify that he or she saw the suspect stab the victim with a knife. Circumstantial evidence is having a witness testify that he or she saw the suspect walk into a house, heard screams, and saw the witness walk out with a bloody knife. Circumstantial evidence assumes the guilt and is therefore circular logic, rendering it useless on its own. Paired with direct evidence, circumstantial evidence can be used to strengthen and even solidify the case. In the case of Casey Anthony, there was far too much circumstantial evidence to even come near convicting her of 1st degree murder. Is this system foolproof? Is there 100% certainty in every case? Is there 100% certainty in any case? No, but the subjectivity lies in that jurors are not exposed to outside media nor do they have contact with persons outside of the courtoom and for good reason. They are the physical representation of the lady in robes; blindfolded and holding the scale. If one side is compelling enough to outweigh the other, then the applicable verdict must be given.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ YES!!! That has to be one of the best things OT has ever done collectively.

Do you even like baseball? I always wondered. :shades: A few of those people you mentioned are still around, some have changed names, others seem to have disappeared. And yes, I've been finding fewer and fewer topics here lately that I even want to post in. Maybe if there was a topic about veterinarians I would consider it...

If the glove does not fit, you must acquit!

You know you can hide people and posts right? I have deleted many people from my Facebook just for that. It's fun to watch them try to re-add me and deny the hell out of it while still remaining nearly equivalent work as trying to block them. Especially when you don't talk to each other. I kept adding and deleting the same kid for weeks before he stopped requesting. When you deny someone, just push the "Don't know this person?" thing or whatever. That way they cannot send you any further requests :thumbup:

You know you can hide people and posts right? I have deleted many people from my Facebook just for that. It's fun to watch them try to re-add me and deny the hell out of it while still remaining nearly equivalent work as trying to block them.

People who think they are the jurors on the Casey Anthony trial. You didn't sit in the courtroom for three weeks, nor were you instructed by the judge, nor did you deliberate the evidence. All you did was watch biased reporting from CNN, NBC, and Fox that had her hung from Day 1 because that is what makes the ratings go up.

And they even sell us the fireworks to light off in celebration of our country!!!

I mean, the players they have already are not really that bad, I just think the chemistry isn't there. I think the fresh start (coach, trade/free agent additions) is going to seriously help this club. They need to bring the Cup or at least the playoffs to MN.

I was hoping for but not expecting new prayer-based armor. Oh well.

V for Vendetta: I saw The Rookie (1990) with Charlie Sheen and Clint Eastwood 10/10 for badassery and awesomeness.

I pulled an all nighter on Sunday-Monday, went to the beach Monday afternoon, came home and fell asleep at 4:30pm. I woke up to my alarm at 6am this morning. 14 hours of power-rest. I still feel like garbage but I survived the weekend :)

I have a Havlat official embroidered jersey :mellow: Oh well, I think the Wild are making the right move by adding Setoguchi and Heatley. They need a revamp, this .500 crap has been going on for too long.