Discussion:
OT: about Harry Krause's "pet" bobcat
(too old to reply)
Waterlou4
2004-01-29 12:28:33 UTC
Permalink
From the Washington Post, January 25:

While the District's law tells you what sort of pets you may have, Maryland
stipulates what you may not: "(1) fox, skunk, raccoon, or bear; (2) alligator
or crocodile; (3) member of the cat family other than the domestic cat; or (4)
poisonous snake. . . ."
Harry Krause
2004-01-29 14:14:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Waterlou4
While the District's law tells you what sort of pets you may have, Maryland
stipulates what you may not: "(1) fox, skunk, raccoon, or bear; (2) alligator
or crocodile; (3) member of the cat family other than the domestic cat; or (4)
poisonous snake. . . ."
You know, Delores, I have been making a special effort for some weeks
now to ignore comment on most of the more stupid remarks you make, and
I've avoided comment for a while now on your personality attributes. If
that displeases you, I'd be delighted to resume eviscerating you on a
daily basis. You're an easy target and you provide the ammunition, too.

Your "OT" about my pet bobcat has nothing to do with my pet bobcat.

Now, why don't you move on...and entertain us with the tale of yet
another of your near-death experiences...
Bogart
2004-01-29 14:36:42 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 09:14:41 -0500 (EST), "Harry Krause"
Post by Waterlou4
Post by Waterlou4
While the District's law tells you what sort of pets you may have,
Maryland
Post by Waterlou4
stipulates what you may not: "(1) fox, skunk, raccoon, or bear; (2)
alligator
Post by Waterlou4
or crocodile; (3) member of the cat family other than the domestic
cat; or (4)
Post by Waterlou4
poisonous snake. . . ."
You know, Delores, I have been making a special effort for some weeks
now to ignore comment on most of the more stupid remarks you make, and
I've avoided comment for a while now on your personality attributes. If
that displeases you, I'd be delighted to resume eviscerating you on a
daily basis. You're an easy target and you provide the ammunition, too.
An easy target. That's why your a bully, Kraus, and a shitbag.
Post by Waterlou4
Your "OT" about my pet bobcat has nothing to do with my pet bobcat.
Now, why don't you move on...and entertain us with the tale of yet
another of your near-death experiences...
Maybe we should hear why it's ok for you to break the law, Harry? :)
---

" But you hear so many gunshots around here that I didn't think much
of it. " - Shaun Kehoe, Proud Supporter of Gun Control in the UK.

http://www.makeashorterlink.com/?T2E452607
Sanford M. Manley
2004-01-29 15:46:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bogart
On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 09:14:41 -0500 (EST), "Harry Krause"
Post by Harry Krause
Post by Waterlou4
While the District's law tells you what sort of pets
"(1) fox, skunk, raccoon, or bear; (2) alligator or
crocodile; (3) member of the cat family other than the
domestic cat; or (4) poisonous snake. . . ."
You know, Delores, I have been making a special effort
for some weeks now to ignore comment on most of the more
stupid remarks you make, and I've avoided comment for a
while now on your personality attributes. If that
displeases you, I'd be delighted to resume eviscerating
you on a daily basis. You're an easy target and you
provide the ammunition, too.
An easy target. That's why your a bully, Kraus, and a
shitbag.
Post by Harry Krause
Your "OT" about my pet bobcat has nothing to do with my
pet bobcat.
Now, why don't you move on...and entertain us with the
tale of yet another of your near-death experiences...
Maybe we should hear why it's ok for you to break the
law, Harry? :) ---
Oh, he's a Democrat! Democrats display all this seriousness
about laws and government for OTHER PEOPLE.
--
Sanford M. Manley
If I ever go to the electric chair my last meal
is going to be a bag of uncooked popcorn!
http://www.livejournal.com/users/ansaman/
Bogart
2004-01-29 17:15:53 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 15:46:25 GMT, "Sanford M. Manley"
Post by Sanford M. Manley
Post by Bogart
On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 09:14:41 -0500 (EST), "Harry Krause"
Post by Harry Krause
Post by Waterlou4
While the District's law tells you what sort of pets
"(1) fox, skunk, raccoon, or bear; (2) alligator or
crocodile; (3) member of the cat family other than the
domestic cat; or (4) poisonous snake. . . ."
You know, Delores, I have been making a special effort
for some weeks now to ignore comment on most of the more
stupid remarks you make, and I've avoided comment for a
while now on your personality attributes. If that
displeases you, I'd be delighted to resume eviscerating
you on a daily basis. You're an easy target and you
provide the ammunition, too.
An easy target. That's why your a bully, Kraus, and a
shitbag.
Post by Harry Krause
Your "OT" about my pet bobcat has nothing to do with my
pet bobcat.
Now, why don't you move on...and entertain us with the
tale of yet another of your near-death experiences...
Maybe we should hear why it's ok for you to break the
law, Harry? :) ---
Oh, he's a Democrat! Democrats display all this seriousness
about laws and government for OTHER PEOPLE.
Ah, thank you for pointing that out. :)
---

" But you hear so many gunshots around here that I didn't think much
of it. " - Shaun Kehoe, Proud Supporter of Gun Control in the UK.

http://www.makeashorterlink.com/?T2E452607
Rob Petrie
2004-01-29 18:15:29 UTC
Permalink
x-no-archive: yes
Post by Sanford M. Manley
Post by Bogart
On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 09:14:41 -0500 (EST), "Harry Krause"
Post by Harry Krause
Post by Waterlou4
While the District's law tells you what sort of pets
"(1) fox, skunk, raccoon, or bear; (2) alligator or
crocodile; (3) member of the cat family other than the
domestic cat; or (4) poisonous snake. . . ."
You know, Delores, I have been making a special effort
for some weeks now to ignore comment on most of the more
stupid remarks you make, and I've avoided comment for a
while now on your personality attributes. If that
displeases you, I'd be delighted to resume eviscerating
you on a daily basis. You're an easy target and you
provide the ammunition, too.
An easy target. That's why your a bully, Kraus, and a
shitbag.
Post by Harry Krause
Your "OT" about my pet bobcat has nothing to do with my
pet bobcat.
Now, why don't you move on...and entertain us with the
tale of yet another of your near-death experiences...
Maybe we should hear why it's ok for you to break the
law, Harry? :) ---
Oh, he's a Democrat! Democrats display all this seriousness
about laws and government for OTHER PEOPLE.
Republicans aren't any better, esp. when it comes to the WAR on DRUGS.
(i.e., Rush Limbaugh, the Bushie twins in FL, Republican Rep.'s and
Sen.'s pleading for
leniency to the judge for their sons-daughters when *they* voted for
'mandatory minimum drug sentences', etc., etc., etc.)

---

"An elective despotism was not the government we fought for."
--Thomas Jefferson

Libertarians want YOU to control your entire life and we treat you as an
adult.

http://www.TheAdvocates.org (non-political)
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html (World's Smallest Political Quiz)
http://www.TheAdvocates.org/celebrities.html
Libertarian Celebrities.

http://www.lp.org (political).
http://mises.org (scholarly).


"The powers NOT delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are RESERVED to the States respectively, or
to the people."
--10th Amendment

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall NOT be
construed to deny or disparage others RETAINED by the people."
--9th Amendment
Harry Krause
2004-01-29 16:55:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bogart
On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 09:14:41 -0500 (EST), "Harry Krause"
Post by Waterlou4
Post by Waterlou4
While the District's law tells you what sort of pets you may have,
Maryland
Post by Waterlou4
stipulates what you may not: "(1) fox, skunk, raccoon, or bear; (2)
alligator
Post by Waterlou4
or crocodile; (3) member of the cat family other than the domestic
cat; or (4)
Post by Waterlou4
poisonous snake. . . ."
You know, Delores, I have been making a special effort for some weeks
now to ignore comment on most of the more stupid remarks you make, and
I've avoided comment for a while now on your personality attributes. If
that displeases you, I'd be delighted to resume eviscerating you on a
daily basis. You're an easy target and you provide the ammunition, too.
An easy target. That's why your a bully, Kraus, and a shitbag.
Ahhh, yet another Klassy Konservative semi-literate.
Bogart
2004-01-29 17:18:04 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 11:55:30 -0500 (EST), "Harry Krause"
Post by Harry Krause
Post by Bogart
On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 09:14:41 -0500 (EST), "Harry Krause"
Post by Waterlou4
Post by Waterlou4
While the District's law tells you what sort of pets you may have,
Maryland
Post by Waterlou4
stipulates what you may not: "(1) fox, skunk, raccoon, or bear; (2)
alligator
Post by Waterlou4
or crocodile; (3) member of the cat family other than the domestic
cat; or (4)
Post by Waterlou4
poisonous snake. . . ."
You know, Delores, I have been making a special effort for some weeks
now to ignore comment on most of the more stupid remarks you make, and
I've avoided comment for a while now on your personality attributes. If
that displeases you, I'd be delighted to resume eviscerating you on a
daily basis. You're an easy target and you provide the ammunition, too.
An easy target. That's why your a bully, Kraus, and a shitbag.
Ahhh, yet another Klassy Konservative semi-literate.
Label me anything you want, Krause. I asked you a question you cut
and didn't answer:

Maybe we should hear why it's ok for you to break the law, Harry? :)

---

" But you hear so many gunshots around here that I didn't think much
of it. " - Shaun Kehoe, Proud Supporter of Gun Control in the UK.

http://www.makeashorterlink.com/?T2E452607
Harry Krause
2004-01-29 23:26:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bogart
On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 11:55:30 -0500 (EST), "Harry Krause"
Post by Harry Krause
Post by Bogart
On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 09:14:41 -0500 (EST), "Harry Krause"
Post by Waterlou4
Post by Waterlou4
While the District's law tells you what sort of pets you may have,
Maryland
Post by Waterlou4
stipulates what you may not: "(1) fox, skunk, raccoon, or bear; (2)
alligator
Post by Waterlou4
or crocodile; (3) member of the cat family other than the domestic
cat; or (4)
Post by Waterlou4
poisonous snake. . . ."
You know, Delores, I have been making a special effort for some weeks
now to ignore comment on most of the more stupid remarks you make, and
I've avoided comment for a while now on your personality attributes. If
that displeases you, I'd be delighted to resume eviscerating you on a
daily basis. You're an easy target and you provide the ammunition, too.
An easy target. That's why your a bully, Kraus, and a shitbag.
Ahhh, yet another Klassy Konservative semi-literate.
Label me anything you want, Krause. I asked you a question you cut
Maybe we should hear why it's ok for you to break the law, Harry? :)
Uh, that's your assumption, based upon a post from Delores Klumpp.
Klumpp, as usual, has her facts wrong.
--
Email sent to ***@yahoo.com is never read.
J.D. Baldwin
2004-01-29 15:36:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Waterlou4
While the District's law tells you what sort of pets you may have,
Both of them can go to hell; as long as your pet is controllable, you
ought to be able to keep it. And a neutered, declawed bobcat is
easily controllable.
Post by Waterlou4
"(1) fox, skunk, raccoon, or bear; (2) alligator or crocodile; (3)
member of the cat family other than the domestic cat; or (4)
poisonous snake. . . ."
There are no species of snake that are poisonous. Plenty of venomous
ones, but all of them are good eatin'.
--
_+_ From the catapult of |If anyone disagrees with any statement I make, I
_|70|___:)=}- J.D. Baldwin |am quite prepared not only to retract it, but also
\ / ***@panix.com|to deny under oath that I ever made it. -T. Lehrer
***~~~~-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Louisiana Lou
2004-01-29 16:07:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by J.D. Baldwin
There are no species of snake that are poisonous. Plenty of venomous
ones, but all of them are good eatin'.
Gumbo!

"Don't cook tonight, call Roadkill Delight."
§no§hoo
2004-01-29 17:07:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by J.D. Baldwin
Post by Waterlou4
While the District's law tells you what sort of pets you may
Both of them can go to hell; as long as your pet is controllable,
you ought to be able to keep it. And a neutered, declawed bobcat
is easily controllable.
YES!!

As I understand it, Harry's bobcat is a rescue. Its mother was killed
and he saved its life and it has a wonderful home, in the company of
several housecats. It's not out roaming the neighborhood and is a
loved member of his family. Certainly a better pet than the abundance
of little yapping, ankle-biter dogs that nobody likes (except the
owner).
Post by J.D. Baldwin
Post by Waterlou4
"(1) fox, skunk, raccoon, or bear; (2) alligator or crocodile;
(3) member of the cat family other than the domestic cat; or (4)
poisonous snake. . . ."
There are no species of snake that are poisonous. Plenty of
venomous ones, but all of them are good eatin'.
Good catch. ;) Besides, it's ok to have a boa constrictor who might
kill a pet or small child? I'd sure as hell rather live next door to
a 'bobcat' than a yapping dog or constrictor snake.

Ms. Klummpp is just taking a potshot and baiting Harry. She misses
the attention he gives her and how she can then complain about it...

Three Cheers for BOB Krause!! ;)

snoshoo

DEFEAT BUSH!!!
PirateJohn
2004-01-29 20:57:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by §no§hoo
Ms. Klummpp is just taking a potshot and baiting Harry. She misses
the attention he gives her and how she can then complain about it...
It does seem like Harry held out an olive branch to Ms. Klummpp and she/he/it
responded with a nasty, personal cute.

And attacking Harry's pet -- that's pretty low.


~~~
"Yeah, and that's why it's still a mystery to me
why some people live like they do.
So many nice things happenin' out there,
they never even seen the clues." -- Jimmy Buffett, "Migration"
§no§hoo
2004-01-29 21:57:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by PirateJohn
Post by §no§hoo
Ms. Klummpp is just taking a potshot and baiting Harry. She
misses the attention he gives her and how she can then complain
about it...
It does seem like Harry held out an olive branch to Ms. Klummpp
and she/he/it responded with a nasty, personal cute.
I didn't think it was "cute"...:<( But he did offer the olive
branch. She chose not to accept it. Seems I've heard that before
about her...and she even posted the email.
Post by PirateJohn
And attacking Harry's pet -- that's pretty low.
Like Harry observed: It wasn't about "Bob"..

To me, Bob sounds delightful and he's one lucky animal to have been
rescued like he was and end up being one of the "KrauseKats"...sounds
like a nice way to be reincarnated, don't you think? ;)

I wonder what Delores Klummmpp has done for a homeless animal,
particularly a wild one?

snoshoo

GOGOGO John Edwards!! <EverySingleDay>
Harry Krause
2004-01-29 23:37:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by §no§hoo
Post by PirateJohn
Post by §no§hoo
Ms. Klummpp is just taking a potshot and baiting Harry. She
misses the attention he gives her and how she can then complain
about it...
It does seem like Harry held out an olive branch to Ms. Klummpp
and she/he/it responded with a nasty, personal cute.
I didn't think it was "cute"...:<( But he did offer the olive
branch. She chose not to accept it. Seems I've heard that before
about her...and she even posted the email.
Post by PirateJohn
And attacking Harry's pet -- that's pretty low.
Like Harry observed: It wasn't about "Bob"..
To me, Bob sounds delightful and he's one lucky animal to have been
rescued like he was and end up being one of the "KrauseKats"...sounds
like a nice way to be reincarnated, don't you think? ;)
I wonder what Delores Klummmpp has done for a homeless animal,
particularly a wild one?
My guess: turned it into road kill.

When I was a union lobbyist back in the 1980s, I'd often run into
passed-over women staffers like our Delores, women who resented the
younger, more aggressive and better trained women making their way up
the ladder. Almost every office had a glorified clerical like Delores,
one who took her "go-fer" job a bit too seriously, and made life
miserable for as many people as possible.
--
Email sent to ***@yahoo.com is never read.
PirateJohn
2004-01-30 14:58:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by §no§hoo
Post by PirateJohn
It does seem like Harry held out an olive branch to Ms. Klummpp
and she/he/it responded with a nasty, personal cute.
I didn't think it was "cute"...:<(
One of my famous typos. That one's so odd that even I'm not quite sure what I
originally meant ;)


~~~
"Yeah, and that's why it's still a mystery to me
why some people live like they do.
So many nice things happenin' out there,
they never even seen the clues." -- Jimmy Buffett, "Migration"
Harry Krause
2004-01-29 23:28:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by PirateJohn
Post by §no§hoo
Ms. Klummpp is just taking a potshot and baiting Harry. She misses
the attention he gives her and how she can then complain about it...
It does seem like Harry held out an olive branch to Ms. Klummpp and she/he/it
responded with a nasty, personal cute.
And attacking Harry's pet -- that's pretty low.
Ms. Klumppp has lotsa problems. No graciousness, either.
--
Email sent to ***@yahoo.com is never read.
Waterlou4
2004-01-30 07:12:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Waterlou4
While the District's law tells you what sort of pets you may have,
Post by J.D. Baldwin
Both of them can go to hell; as long as your pet is controllable, you
ought to be able to keep it. And a neutered, declawed bobcat is
easily controllable.<< -- J.D. Baldwin

What you think "ought" to be is not the way it is, and until you persuade the
state legislature that it's wrong, ignoring/breaking the law is not an
acceptable way to behave.

I worry about somebody's toddler getting loose and looking like a snack to
Harry's bobcat.

But wait - maybe the cat won't bite - maybe it will follow Harry's example and
just throw an ad hominem insult at anyone who gets in its way.
Rob Petrie
2004-01-30 09:52:18 UTC
Permalink
x-no-archive: yes
Post by J.D. Baldwin
Post by Waterlou4
While the District's law tells you what sort of pets you may have,
Post by J.D. Baldwin
Both of them can go to hell; as long as your pet is controllable, you
ought to be able to keep it. And a neutered, declawed bobcat is
easily controllable.<< -- J.D. Baldwin
What you think "ought" to be is not the way it is, and until you persuade the
state legislature that it's wrong, ignoring/breaking the law is not an
acceptable way to behave.
Maryland has plenty of laws that are unenforceable. Same as in all
the other 49 States, and DC. For instance, guns are outlawed in DC, but DC
is by far the murder capital of the U.S. on a per person basis, so it
appears
only outlaws have the guns. :-(
Maryland also has strict gun control laws (not as strict as DC), but
that doesn't seem to have any noticeable effect in stopping the armed
robbers, muggers, and murderers running around on the streets of Baltimore
and the other MD cities.
Speaking of MD, they better have plenty of MD's available to treat all
the victims of defensive disarmament.
Post by J.D. Baldwin
I worry about somebody's toddler getting loose and looking like a snack to
Harry's bobcat.
A toddler in Harry's house? Maybe you meant to say the bobcat getting
loose not a toddler, since the bobcat is inside.
I think you've got a screw loose upstairs constantly worrying about
things you have no control over.
Maybe you should worry more about taking better care of yourself
instead of somebody else.
Post by J.D. Baldwin
But wait - maybe the cat won't bite - maybe it will follow Harry's example and
just throw an ad hominem insult at anyone who gets in its way.
There are plenty of animals that have been taught to be domesticated
and tame, unlike some 'more intelligent' humans.

---


"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear
arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in
government."
"No free men shall be debarred the use of arms."
--Thomas Jefferson

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are
neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make
things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve
rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be
attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
--Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria


The place in the U.S. with the strictest gun control law is D.C.
Fact: 262 murders in DC (2002) [about 232 in 2001]
Rate: 40.6 per 100,000 (2001), #1 in U.S. by far
Louisiana 11.2 per 100,000 (2001) is a far-distant #2 in the U.S. on murder

D.C. pop. 570,898 (2002)

Gun control doesn't stop crime or criminals in D.C. or other places in the
world, or D.C. would be the safest city in the U.S instead of the deadliest
place to live.


Safest States for murder (2001)

1. South Dakota 0.9 per 100,000
2. Vermont-N.Dakota 1.1 per 100,000

And Vermont has NO law restricting anybody from carrying anytime they want.
Refute that!

3. New Hampshire-Maine 1.4 per 100,000


NH also has a very liberal law on conceal carry; but few murders in
contrast.

Your dumb State of Maryland, has a rate 6 times as high as NH with strict
gun control laws: 8.3 per 100,000. If you don't want to be murdered,
you should move to NH-ME, VT, or SD instead of crime-ridden Maryland!!!
The Kentucky Wizard
2004-01-30 09:52:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by J.D. Baldwin
Post by Waterlou4
While the District's law tells you what sort of pets you may
have,
Post by J.D. Baldwin
Post by Waterlou4
Post by J.D. Baldwin
Both of them can go to hell; as long as your pet is
controllable, you
Post by J.D. Baldwin
ought to be able to keep it. And a neutered, declawed bobcat
is
Post by J.D. Baldwin
easily controllable.<< -- J.D. Baldwin
What you think "ought" to be is not the way it is, and until
you persuade the
Post by J.D. Baldwin
state legislature that it's wrong, ignoring/breaking the law
is not an
Post by J.D. Baldwin
acceptable way to behave.
I worry about somebody's toddler getting loose and looking
like a snack to
Post by J.D. Baldwin
Harry's bobcat.
But wait - maybe the cat won't bite - maybe it will follow
Harry's example and
Post by J.D. Baldwin
just throw an ad hominem insult at anyone who gets in its way.
I have to admit, Madcow, that IMHO, you definitely dropped the
ball this time, and started an unwarranted flame against Harry.
Now, I'll be the first to say that I didn't care much for his
flaming rants, nor anyone else's for that matter against you in
the past, and at times those flaming rants went well beyond
reason, and they were totally uncalled for. However, Harry seems
to have made a conscious effort to avoid saying anything
negative about you since the first of the year, perhaps he made
that one of his "New Year's Resolution", who knows. But now,
here you come, tossing the trash back over into his yard, when
you should have been doing that all along, and not wait until
after those flames against you have stopped.

Hopefully, Harry and anyone else, that has had an axe to grid
with you in the past, won't grab hold of this knee-jerk post
that you let loose, and hop back on the same ole band wagon and
go back to the way things were, for frankly, it was all very
silly, redundant as hell, and all around stupid.

If you have a problem with Harry having what you feel is a
non-domesticated animal, which the only proof of its existence
that I know of, is what Harry has said about it, then call
Animal Control, call the Police, call the Zoo, call Batman, call
Scotland Yard, call Dial-a Prayer, call anyone that you need to
call and have it investigated. This is certainly not the place
to hammer this topic out, no more than it was the place to
discuss your boat that he spoke so fondly of in the past.

Now, you and I haven't always agreed, but we have chatted
off-channel, and we have kept those chats very cordial, and I
hope it continues that way, and the same can be said for the few
chats that Harry and myself have had off-channel, but I have to
be honest, you were given a reprieve from Harry's constant
badgering at you, and you failed to take full advantage of it,
and instead started a badgering session of your own. So let's
drop this silly crap and worry about something that really
matters, like, how can we get Pirate-John to stop wearing Don
Ho's hand-me-down shirts?

*The Wiz quietly slips on his flame retardant suit, and awaits
the volley of fireballs that will surely come his way*
--
© The Wiz ®
«¤»¥«¤»¥«¤»
Harry Krause
2004-01-30 10:58:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by J.D. Baldwin
Post by J.D. Baldwin
Post by Waterlou4
While the District's law tells you what sort of pets you may
have,
Post by J.D. Baldwin
Post by Waterlou4
Post by J.D. Baldwin
Both of them can go to hell; as long as your pet is
controllable, you
Post by J.D. Baldwin
ought to be able to keep it. And a neutered, declawed bobcat
is
Post by J.D. Baldwin
easily controllable.<< -- J.D. Baldwin
What you think "ought" to be is not the way it is, and until
you persuade the
Post by J.D. Baldwin
state legislature that it's wrong, ignoring/breaking the law
is not an
Post by J.D. Baldwin
acceptable way to behave.
I worry about somebody's toddler getting loose and looking
like a snack to
Post by J.D. Baldwin
Harry's bobcat.
But wait - maybe the cat won't bite - maybe it will follow
Harry's example and
Post by J.D. Baldwin
just throw an ad hominem insult at anyone who gets in its way.
I have to admit, Madcow, that IMHO, you definitely dropped the
ball this time, and started an unwarranted flame against Harry.
Now, I'll be the first to say that I didn't care much for his
flaming rants, nor anyone else's for that matter against you in
the past, and at times those flaming rants went well beyond
reason, and they were totally uncalled for. However, Harry seems
to have made a conscious effort to avoid saying anything
negative about you since the first of the year, perhaps he made
that one of his "New Year's Resolution", who knows. But now,
here you come, tossing the trash back over into his yard, when
you should have been doing that all along, and not wait until
after those flames against you have stopped.
Hopefully, Harry and anyone else, that has had an axe to grid
with you in the past, won't grab hold of this knee-jerk post
that you let loose, and hop back on the same ole band wagon and
go back to the way things were, for frankly, it was all very
silly, redundant as hell, and all around stupid.
If you have a problem with Harry having what you feel is a
non-domesticated animal, which the only proof of its existence
that I know of, is what Harry has said about it, then call
Animal Control, call the Police, call the Zoo, call Batman, call
Scotland Yard, call Dial-a Prayer, call anyone that you need to
call and have it investigated. This is certainly not the place
to hammer this topic out, no more than it was the place to
discuss your boat that he spoke so fondly of in the past.
Now, you and I haven't always agreed, but we have chatted
off-channel, and we have kept those chats very cordial, and I
hope it continues that way, and the same can be said for the few
chats that Harry and myself have had off-channel, but I have to
be honest, you were given a reprieve from Harry's constant
badgering at you, and you failed to take full advantage of it,
and instead started a badgering session of your own. So let's
drop this silly crap and worry about something that really
matters, like, how can we get Pirate-John to stop wearing Don
Ho's hand-me-down shirts?
*The Wiz quietly slips on his flame retardant suit, and awaits
the volley of fireballs that will surely come his way*
Bobcat is a well-adjusted *Democratic* male, and although he has had a
vasectomy, he still prefers a little pussy to small children, a
characteristic that differentiates him from *Republican" males.
--
Email sent to ***@yahoo.com is never read.
Louisiana Lou
2004-01-30 14:44:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Kentucky Wizard
*The Wiz quietly slips on his flame retardant suit, and awaits
the volley of fireballs that will surely come his way*
You muddafucka! <g>
Waterlou4
2004-01-30 21:14:02 UTC
Permalink
Wiz, the Harry and his bobcat discussion has been going on for a long time. It
just happened that the Washington Post printed that item about state wild
animal laws on Sunday. I posted an excerpt to clarify the legal situation
about this bobcat - something which had not been done before in the broader
ongoing discussion of wild animals as pets.

I'm afraid you're overreacting this time.
Harry Krause
2004-01-30 23:23:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Waterlou4
Wiz, the Harry and his bobcat discussion has been going on for a long time. It
just happened that the Washington Post printed that item about state wild
animal laws on Sunday. I posted an excerpt to clarify the legal situation
about this bobcat - something which had not been done before in the broader
ongoing discussion of wild animals as pets.
I'm afraid you're overreacting this time.
I doubt you could clarify butter. You know nothing about the "legal
situation" of this particular bobcat, dearie.
--
Email sent to ***@yahoo.com is never read.
Rob Petrie
2004-01-31 01:55:58 UTC
Permalink
x-no-archive: yes
Post by Harry Krause
Post by Waterlou4
Wiz, the Harry and his bobcat discussion has been going on for a long time. It
just happened that the Washington Post printed that item about state wild
animal laws on Sunday. I posted an excerpt to clarify the legal situation
about this bobcat - something which had not been done before in the broader
ongoing discussion of wild animals as pets.
I'm afraid you're overreacting this time.
I doubt you could clarify butter. You know nothing about the "legal
situation" of this particular bobcat, dearie.
Dearie? How sweet.
Hold hands, you lovebirds!
Harry Krause
2004-01-31 02:19:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rob Petrie
x-no-archive: yes
Post by Harry Krause
Post by Waterlou4
Wiz, the Harry and his bobcat discussion has been going on for a long
time. It
Post by Harry Krause
Post by Waterlou4
just happened that the Washington Post printed that item about state
wild
Post by Harry Krause
Post by Waterlou4
animal laws on Sunday. I posted an excerpt to clarify the legal
situation
Post by Harry Krause
Post by Waterlou4
about this bobcat - something which had not been done before in the
broader
Post by Harry Krause
Post by Waterlou4
ongoing discussion of wild animals as pets.
I'm afraid you're overreacting this time.
I doubt you could clarify butter. You know nothing about the "legal
situation" of this particular bobcat, dearie.
Dearie? How sweet.
Hold hands, you lovebirds!
Eeeeeeeek! To protect myself, I'd have to wear three pairs of medical
gloves. Remember, this woman has confessed to more deadly diseases than
Ann Coulter has hits on the bleach bottle.
--
Email sent to ***@yahoo.com is never read.
Rob Petrie
2004-01-31 19:48:53 UTC
Permalink
x-no-archive: yes
Post by Harry Krause
Post by Waterlou4
Post by Harry Krause
Post by Waterlou4
Wiz, the Harry and his bobcat discussion has been going on for a long
time. It
Post by Harry Krause
Post by Waterlou4
just happened that the Washington Post printed that item about state
wild
Post by Harry Krause
Post by Waterlou4
animal laws on Sunday. I posted an excerpt to clarify the legal
situation
Post by Harry Krause
Post by Waterlou4
about this bobcat - something which had not been done before in the
broader
Post by Harry Krause
Post by Waterlou4
ongoing discussion of wild animals as pets.
I'm afraid you're overreacting this time.
I doubt you could clarify butter. You know nothing about the "legal
situation" of this particular bobcat, dearie.
Dearie? How sweet.
Hold hands, you lovebirds!
Eeeeeeeek! To protect myself, I'd have to wear three pairs of medical
gloves. Remember, this woman has confessed to more deadly diseases than
Ann Coulter has hits on the bleach bottle.
Are you insinuating that Ann Coulter does not have blonde pubic hair?
;-)
And how would you know her real hair color, anyway?
Harry Krause
2004-01-31 20:49:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rob Petrie
x-no-archive: yes
Post by Harry Krause
Post by Waterlou4
Post by Harry Krause
Post by Waterlou4
Wiz, the Harry and his bobcat discussion has been going on for a long
time. It
Post by Harry Krause
Post by Waterlou4
just happened that the Washington Post printed that item about state
wild
Post by Harry Krause
Post by Waterlou4
animal laws on Sunday. I posted an excerpt to clarify the legal
situation
Post by Harry Krause
Post by Waterlou4
about this bobcat - something which had not been done before in the
broader
Post by Harry Krause
Post by Waterlou4
ongoing discussion of wild animals as pets.
I'm afraid you're overreacting this time.
I doubt you could clarify butter. You know nothing about the "legal
situation" of this particular bobcat, dearie.
Dearie? How sweet.
Hold hands, you lovebirds!
Eeeeeeeek! To protect myself, I'd have to wear three pairs of medical
gloves. Remember, this woman has confessed to more deadly diseases than
Ann Coulter has hits on the bleach bottle.
Are you insinuating that Ann Coulter does not have blonde pubic hair?
;-)
And how would you know her real hair color, anyway?
A. Not at all. She probably bleaches her pubic area, too. As a way of
disinfecting herself.

B. Her real hair color is not what she wears on her head.
--
Email sent to ***@yahoo.com is never read.
Rob Petrie
2004-01-31 01:54:45 UTC
Permalink
x-no-archive: yes
Post by Waterlou4
Wiz, the Harry and his bobcat discussion has been going on for a long time. It
just happened that the Washington Post printed that item about state wild
animal laws on Sunday. I posted an excerpt to clarify the legal situation
about this bobcat - something which had not been done before in the broader
ongoing discussion of wild animals as pets.
I'm afraid you're overreacting this time.
NEVER, I repeat NEVER tell the Great and Wonderful Wiz he is
overreacting!
[Under penalty of death--or at the least flamed in this ng.]
The Kentucky Wizard
2004-01-31 05:30:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rob Petrie
x-no-archive: yes
Post by Waterlou4
Wiz, the Harry and his bobcat discussion has been going on
for a long time. It
Post by Rob Petrie
Post by Waterlou4
just happened that the Washington Post printed that item
about state wild
Post by Rob Petrie
Post by Waterlou4
animal laws on Sunday. I posted an excerpt to clarify the
legal situation
Post by Rob Petrie
Post by Waterlou4
about this bobcat - something which had not been done before
in the broader
Post by Rob Petrie
Post by Waterlou4
ongoing discussion of wild animals as pets.
I'm afraid you're overreacting this time.
NEVER, I repeat NEVER tell the Great and Wonderful Wiz
he is
Post by Rob Petrie
overreacting!
[Under penalty of death--or at the least flamed in this
ng.]



You're drinking again, aren't you?
--
© The Wiz ®
«¤»¥«¤»¥«¤»
Harry Krause
2004-01-30 10:39:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by J.D. Baldwin
Post by Waterlou4
While the District's law tells you what sort of pets you may have,
Post by J.D. Baldwin
Both of them can go to hell; as long as your pet is controllable, you
ought to be able to keep it. And a neutered, declawed bobcat is
easily controllable.<< -- J.D. Baldwin
What you think "ought" to be is not the way it is, and until you persuade the
state legislature that it's wrong, ignoring/breaking the law is not an
acceptable way to behave.
I worry about somebody's toddler getting loose and looking like a snack to
Harry's bobcat.
Oh, yeah, sure you do. Uh-huh.
--
Email sent to ***@yahoo.com is never read.
J.D. Baldwin
2004-01-30 17:01:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Waterlou4
What you think "ought" to be is not the way it is, and until you
persuade the state legislature that it's wrong, ignoring/breaking
the law is not an acceptable way to behave.
Sorry, I draw a sharp distinction between malum prohibitum and malum
in se. If the legislature is being an ass, then screw 'em. Life is
too short to spend *years* of it crusading to have a stupid law
modified or repealed, particularly given the low, low chance of having
that actually happen without political connections or lots and lots of
money (but I repeat myself).

Bad laws should be ignored or even actively disobeyed.
Post by Waterlou4
I worry about somebody's toddler getting loose and looking like a
snack to Harry's bobcat.
But wait - maybe the cat won't bite - maybe it will follow Harry's
example and just throw an ad hominem insult at anyone who gets in
its way.
Peeve: "ad hominem" and "insult" are not synonymous, and an insult
can hardly be an "ad hominem" one, given that "ad hominem" is a
logical fallacy, and an insult does not depend on logical correctness.

There are millions of dogs in the U.S. -- probably upwards of half a
million in Maryland alone -- that are a greater threat to children
than a domesticated, supervised bobcat. But no state legislature in
the U.S. wants to take even baby steps toward addressing that problem
because to do so would piss off the legion dog lovers, who are far
more numerous than their actual and potential victims.
--
_+_ From the catapult of |If anyone disagrees with any statement I make, I
_|70|___:)=}- J.D. Baldwin |am quite prepared not only to retract it, but also
\ / ***@panix.com|to deny under oath that I ever made it. -T. Lehrer
***~~~~-----------------------------------------------------------------------
PirateJohn
2004-01-30 19:14:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by J.D. Baldwin
Post by Waterlou4
What you think "ought" to be is not the way it is, and until you
persuade the state legislature that it's wrong, ignoring/breaking
the law is not an acceptable way to behave.
Sorry, I draw a sharp distinction between malum prohibitum and malum
in se.
Hell, JD's starting to sound like a radical here ;)

Seriously, the most fundamental aspect of this thread is that just because
MadCow says that something is illegal, it would be foolish to jump to any
conclusions without a second opinion. She's been wrong so many times before
that it's not funny.


~~~
"Yeah, and that's why it's still a mystery to me
why some people live like they do.
So many nice things happenin' out there,
they never even seen the clues." -- Jimmy Buffett, "Migration"
Rob Petrie
2004-01-31 01:41:50 UTC
Permalink
x-no-archive: yes
Post by PirateJohn
Post by J.D. Baldwin
Post by Waterlou4
What you think "ought" to be is not the way it is, and until you
persuade the state legislature that it's wrong, ignoring/breaking
the law is not an acceptable way to behave.
Sorry, I draw a sharp distinction between malum prohibitum and malum
in se.
Hell, JD's starting to sound like a radical here ;)
Seriously, the most fundamental aspect of this thread is that just because
MadCow says that something is illegal, it would be foolish to jump to any
conclusions without a second opinion. She's been wrong so many times before
that it's not funny.
Oh, I think she is rather funny. [take that anyway you want]
Louisiana Lou
2004-01-31 01:44:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rob Petrie
x-no-archive: yes
Post by PirateJohn
Hell, JD's starting to sound like a radical here ;)
Seriously, the most fundamental aspect of this thread is that just because
MadCow says that something is illegal, it would be foolish to jump to any
conclusions without a second opinion. She's been wrong so many times
before
Post by PirateJohn
that it's not funny.
Oh, I think she is rather funny. [take that anyway you want]
Real funny, or just Rita Rudner funny?
Waterlou4
2004-01-31 08:47:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by PirateJohn
Seriously, the most fundamental aspect of this thread is that just because
MadCow says that something is illegal, it would be foolish to jump to any
conclusions without a second opinion. < -- Rob Petrie
I didn't say it. The Washington Post said the state of Maryland said it. I
posted an excerpt from the Washington Post. Please try to stay oriented.
(maybe you'd understand that better if I used "orientated" instead.)
Waterlou4
2004-01-30 21:14:22 UTC
Permalink
Bad laws should be ignored or even actively disobeyed.<< -- J.D. Baldwin
But who gets to decide whether a law is bad and therefore can be ignored or
disobeyed? Only you, or anybody? And what if there's a law you like but
someone else doesn't? Maybe something about parking in a way that blocks a
neighbor's driveway, for example.

Explain.
J.D. Baldwin
2004-01-30 22:19:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Waterlou4
But who gets to decide whether a law is bad and therefore can be
ignored or disobeyed? Only you, or anybody? And what if there's a
law you like but someone else doesn't? Maybe something about
parking in a way that blocks a neighbor's driveway, for example.
*Widespread* disobedience of a law is the best tool the people have
for getting rid of it. If you're the only person breaking a law, then
you're running a risk. And of course if the law you're breaking truly
has broad public support, then your neighbors are going to narc on
you. If you're breaking a law that no one notices you breaking
... then why the hell was it even a law in the first place?
--
_+_ From the catapult of |If anyone disagrees with any statement I make, I
_|70|___:)=}- J.D. Baldwin |am quite prepared not only to retract it, but also
\ / ***@panix.com|to deny under oath that I ever made it. -T. Lehrer
***~~~~-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Petrie
2004-01-31 01:52:09 UTC
Permalink
x-no-archive: yes
Post by J.D. Baldwin
Post by Waterlou4
But who gets to decide whether a law is bad and therefore can be
ignored or disobeyed? Only you, or anybody? And what if there's a
law you like but someone else doesn't? Maybe something about
parking in a way that blocks a neighbor's driveway, for example.
When there is an actual victim, yes, almost all juries will (if the
evidence supports it) convict. But when there is no actual other victim
(drug laws, smoking, drinking, consensual sex), the juries should
acquit--regardless of the judge's final [purposely misleading] "instructions
to the jury" as: "You judge the facts, and I judge the law."
Post by J.D. Baldwin
*Widespread* disobedience of a law is the best tool the people have
for getting rid of it. If you're the only person breaking a law, then
you're running a risk. And of course if the law you're breaking truly
has broad public support, then your neighbors are going to narc on
you. If you're breaking a law that no one notices you breaking
... then why the hell was it even a law in the first place?
Easy!
To win friends and influence people [voters] to vote for them in the
next election!!!

[Whether the law does exactly what it was supposed to accomplish, or
not.]
Waterlou4
2004-01-31 08:46:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by J.D. Baldwin
*Widespread* disobedience of a law is the best tool the people have
for getting rid of it.<< -- J.D. Baldwin

The method I prefer is massive letter-writing and lobbying campaigns as a way
of getting laws changed AND at the same time honoring our system of
representative democracy. Your method promotes anarchy - maybe in a small way
- but get enough people to think like that and we're in big trouble.
Harry Krause
2004-01-31 13:41:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Waterlou4
Post by J.D. Baldwin
*Widespread* disobedience of a law is the best tool the people have
for getting rid of it.<< -- J.D. Baldwin
The method I prefer is massive letter-writing and lobbying campaigns as a way
of getting laws changed AND at the same time honoring our system of
representative democracy. Your method promotes anarchy - maybe in a small way
- but get enough people to think like that and we're in big trouble.
For someone who lived through the times and trials of Martin Luther
King, that certainly is a naive statement on your part. No surprise.
--
Email sent to ***@yahoo.com is never read.
Terry del Fuego
2004-01-31 17:18:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Waterlou4
The method I prefer is massive letter-writing and lobbying campaigns as a way
of getting laws changed AND at the same time honoring our system of
representative democracy. Your method promotes anarchy - maybe in a small way
- but get enough people to think like that and we're in big trouble.
Your method says it's OK for your current "stud" president to continue
to torture sick people who, by the way, frequently aren't able to
engage in letter-writing campaigns or sexual-favor campaigns to get
vicious, brutal laws changed.

Did you mean to promote anarchy when you smoked marijuana?
Rob Petrie
2004-01-31 20:04:53 UTC
Permalink
x-no-archive: yes
Post by Terry del Fuego
Post by Waterlou4
The method I prefer is massive letter-writing and lobbying campaigns as a way
of getting laws changed AND at the same time honoring our system of
representative democracy. Your method promotes anarchy - maybe in a small way
- but get enough people to think like that and we're in big trouble.
Your method says it's OK for your current "stud" president to continue
to torture sick people who, by the way, frequently aren't able to
engage in letter-writing campaigns or sexual-favor campaigns to get
vicious, brutal laws changed.
Did you mean to promote anarchy when you smoked marijuana?
She did? Cow needs to go straight to jail, no questions asked, and no
defense as she broke the LAW!!!

"Our Savior, who sits in Washington, DC, hallowed be thy name, who
gives us our daily bread, forgives our trespasses [NOT]..."

---

"An elective despotism was not the government we fought for."
--Thomas Jefferson

Libertarians want YOU to control your entire life and we treat you as an
adult.

http://www.TheAdvocates.org (non-political)
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html (World's Smallest Political Quiz)
http://www.TheAdvocates.org/celebrities.html
Libertarian Celebrities.

http://www.lp.org (political).
http://mises.org (scholarly).


"The powers NOT delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are RESERVED to the States respectively, or
to the people."
--10th Amendment

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall NOT be
construed to deny or disparage others RETAINED by the people."
--9th Amendment
Rob Petrie
2004-01-31 20:00:21 UTC
Permalink
x-no-archive: yes
Post by Waterlou4
Post by J.D. Baldwin
*Widespread* disobedience of a law is the best tool the people have
for getting rid of it.<< -- J.D. Baldwin
The method I prefer is massive letter-writing and lobbying campaigns as a way
of getting laws changed AND at the same time honoring our system of
representative democracy. Your method promotes anarchy - maybe in a small way
- but get enough people to think like that and we're in big trouble.
We're all in big financial and foreign policy trouble NOW.
Uncle Sam has debts up to his forehead, and has numerous foreign
enemies because of his foreign policy decisions and meddling in other
countries (CIA, etc.) going back over 50 years.
Now, what's all this crud about 'big trouble' because 70+ mil. U.S.
citizens have already broken the law by smoking marijuana at least once?
You want to throw them all in jail?
I got news for you: there is no room for them! [unless you want to
throw out into the streets all the murderers, rapists, muggers, burglars,
assaulters, etc. And there still wouldn't be enough room for the smokers
(mj or regular), who break some "goo-goo" law *]

* goo-goo = slang for 'good government'
Bill Schenley
2004-01-31 22:12:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Waterlou4
Post by J.D. Baldwin
*Widespread* disobedience of a law is the best tool
the people have for getting rid of it.
The method I prefer is massive letter-writing
But who would we buy the stamps from? Oh. You mean ...
*them*.
Post by Waterlou4
and lobbying campaigns as a way of getting laws changed
AND at the same time honoring our system of representative
democracy.
"Representative democracy?" What planet do *you* live on?
Post by Waterlou4
Your method promotes anarchy - maybe in a small way
- but get enough people to think like that and we're in
big
Post by Waterlou4
trouble.
Get enough people to think like that and we just might save
this country and the world we all live in.
J.D. Baldwin
2004-02-01 04:44:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Waterlou4
Post by J.D. Baldwin
*Widespread* disobedience of a law is the best tool the people have
for getting rid of it.<< -- J.D. Baldwin
The method I prefer is massive letter-writing and lobbying campaigns
as a way of getting laws changed AND at the same time honoring our
system of representative democracy. Your method promotes anarchy -
maybe in a small way - but get enough people to think like that and
we're in big trouble.
Do you really think the abomination of Prohibition was repealed
because people wrote stern letters to the Times?
--
_+_ From the catapult of |If anyone disagrees with any statement I make, I
_|70|___:)=}- J.D. Baldwin |am quite prepared not only to retract it, but also
\ / ***@panix.com|to deny under oath that I ever made it. -T. Lehrer
***~~~~-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Petrie
2004-01-31 01:46:02 UTC
Permalink
x-no-archive: yes
Post by Waterlou4
Bad laws should be ignored or even actively disobeyed.<< -- J.D. Baldwin
But who gets to decide whether a law is bad and therefore can be ignored or
disobeyed? Only you, or anybody? And what if there's a law you like but
someone else doesn't? Maybe something about parking in a way that blocks a
neighbor's driveway, for example.
Everybody gets to decide--that is what juries were designed to do.
Enough acquittals of bad laws send the necessary feedback to the
appropriate Legislature/Executive that the People disapprove of the law and
want its repeal.
And that's exactly how the Fugitive Slave laws and Prohibition were
eventually repealed (Prohibition repealed by the 21st Amendment of the bad
18th).
People in the juries simply refused to convict those charged under
those bad laws.
Post by Waterlou4
Explain.
I just did.
Louisiana Lou
2004-01-31 01:55:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rob Petrie
x-no-archive: yes
Post by Waterlou4
Bad laws should be ignored or even actively disobeyed.<< -- J.D. Baldwin
But who gets to decide whether a law is bad and therefore can be ignored
or
Post by Waterlou4
disobeyed? Only you, or anybody? And what if there's a law you like but
someone else doesn't? Maybe something about parking in a way that
blocks
Post by Rob Petrie
a
Post by Waterlou4
neighbor's driveway, for example.
Everybody gets to decide--that is what juries were designed to do.
For the idiots who block driveways, a tow truck is usually pretty effective.
I've never heard of that going before a jury, but I wouldn't doubt if it
happened somewhere, given the litigious nature of some folks nowadays.
Post by Rob Petrie
Enough acquittals of bad laws send the necessary feedback to the
appropriate Legislature/Executive that the People disapprove of the law and
want its repeal.
And that's exactly how the Fugitive Slave laws and Prohibition were
eventually repealed (Prohibition repealed by the 21st Amendment of the bad
18th).
People in the juries simply refused to convict those charged under
those bad laws.
Not often enough! BTW, what ever happened to the FIJA?
Post by Rob Petrie
Post by Waterlou4
Explain.
I just did.
Terry del Fuego
2004-01-31 03:14:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Waterlou4
Bad laws should be ignored or even actively disobeyed.<< -- J.D. Baldwin
But who gets to decide whether a law is bad and therefore can be ignored or
disobeyed? Only you, or anybody? And what if there's a law you like but
someone else doesn't?
You have admitted smoking marijuana. The seat on the high horse does
not belong to you.
PirateJohn
2004-01-29 17:00:15 UTC
Permalink
I thought that Harry's bobcat was in Florida. And if that's the case, he's not
the only one with one of those suckers down here. And, FWIW, I'm pretty sure
that's 100% legal.


~~~
"Yeah, and that's why it's still a mystery to me
why some people live like they do.
So many nice things happenin' out there,
they never even seen the clues." -- Jimmy Buffett, "Migration"
Loading...