New Testingstan

Posted: **Wed Dec 07, 2011 7:59 pm**

yeah but as i recall the last time there was some question that the people forgot to pay or something like that, whereas this time...

Bell and her boyfriend said they were aware of the policy, but thought a fire would never happen to them.

welp

seriously though that county needs to get its shit together and pass a tax to either fund a county fire department or provide additional funding to the municipalities so that there's no need for a separate fee

Posted: **Wed Dec 07, 2011 8:06 pm**

well the rub is the city could have just billed them after the fact

unfortunately the article doesn't seem to go into what caused the fire

Posted: **Wed Dec 07, 2011 8:06 pm**

Uh yeah. And why isn't it covered under the property taxes?

Posted: **Wed Dec 07, 2011 8:46 pm**

I vaguely remember last time this issue came up that someone said the county was unable to levy the taxes necessary for fire protection because of anti-tax shitheads refusing to allow it or something. I would be utterly unsurprised if, faced with a levy (or a county commissioner election) in which they were presented with the option, the couple in this latest news story would have voted against raising taxes to provide for rural fire protection.

Posted: **Wed Dec 07, 2011 9:43 pm**

Let's put it this way, can you imagine if the police refused to investigate crimes if you didn't pay a fee?

I mean pft, as long as the criminals aren't causing bodily harm who cares right?

Posted: **Wed Dec 07, 2011 10:29 pm**

Seriously, having to pay the cost for the fire department saving your house seems lesson enough over "we'll sit and watch as your home and everything in it burns to the ground".

Posted: **Wed Dec 07, 2011 10:52 pm**

you could say the same thing about fire insurance right

Posted: **Wed Dec 07, 2011 11:32 pm**

People like this are what's wrong with PC gaming.

LOL..

A gaming laptop under $1000.

You and I have a very different concept on what the word "Gaming" means.

You seem to think that if a laptop can play MW3 that makes it a gaming laptop..

Good luck finding a gaming laptop that can play Metro: Last Light maxed out under $1000.

I take it from your lack of worry about what piracy is doing to PC gaming that you're just a worthless game pirate yourself? Peg leg and all..

Sorry but I find it hard to believe anyone that call's them self a PC gamer that doesn't care about what piracy is doing to the genre actually goes out and buys their games.

Hell you probably think because you play WoW that makes you a PC gamer..amirite?

Posted: **Wed Dec 07, 2011 11:38 pm**

Wheres that from?

Posted: **Thu Dec 08, 2011 12:16 am**

Aaron wrote:Wheres that from?

joystiq of course

Posted: **Thu Dec 08, 2011 12:31 am**

The irony is most console games run better on PCs than most dedicated PC games do.

Maybe developers should create some virtual machines to code for instead of just feeding the hardware industry :v

Posted: **Thu Dec 08, 2011 12:35 am**

is this like how the only 'car' that a 'driver' wants to 'drive' is the fastest ever for two million dollars

Posted: **Thu Dec 08, 2011 12:39 am**

VF5SS wrote:The irony is most console games run better on PCs than most dedicated PC games do.

Maybe developers should create some virtual machines to code for instead of just feeding the hardware industry

that's because they're dumbed down don'tchaknow

Posted: **Thu Dec 08, 2011 1:17 am**

man, you know what i remembered today looking at the article rouge posted in slam

is the only worthwhile topic ever from the coliseum

when straha fucking schooled him

i wish straha were still around

Posted: **Thu Dec 08, 2011 1:24 am**

Zod wrote:that's because they're dumbed down don'tchaknow

I didn't know you were from Wisconsin

Posted: **Thu Dec 08, 2011 1:38 am**

Nietzslime wrote:man, you know what i remembered today looking at the article rouge posted in slam

is the only worthwhile topic ever from the coliseum

when straha fucking schooled him

i wish straha were still around

I remember him in the Iran threads. He won that shit repeatedly.

Posted: **Thu Dec 08, 2011 1:39 am**

Nietzslime wrote:man, you know what i remembered today looking at the article rouge posted in slam

is the only worthwhile topic ever from the coliseum

when straha fucking schooled him

i wish straha were still around

god yes

i saw him peek in a few days ago

i wish he were here for some of the iran threads

but i'm working up an inflammatory post because i recognized the name

denyse o'leary, canadian creationist and supporter of islamophobic conspiracy theorist mark steyn

Posted: **Thu Dec 08, 2011 2:08 am**

i love that shep barged in and demanded "better evil options" edit: in the rpg thread

think i'm going to half-troll

Posted: **Thu Dec 08, 2011 2:38 am**

Zod wrote:Let's put it this way, can you imagine if the police refused to investigate crimes if you didn't pay a fee?

I mean pft, as long as the criminals aren't causing bodily harm who cares right?

I did say the county needed to unfuck itself.

That said, I actually could imagine city police refusing to respond to non-violent crimes outside of their jurisdiction, especially if the complainants were dumbass freeloading country hicks. That doesn't mean I think it's good, but I think it's entirely plausible for that scenario to occur in the US.

Posted: **Thu Dec 08, 2011 2:39 am**

He looks pretty stupid saying 'why doesn't a strategic game with hundreds if guys look as good as a first person game with half a dozen'

I actually love how out of touch he is

Posted: **Thu Dec 08, 2011 2:40 am**

B-A-K-U-S-T-R-A wrote:
god yes

i saw him peek in a few days ago

i wish he were here for some of the iran threads

but i'm working up an inflammatory post because i recognized the name

denyse o'leary, canadian creationist and supporter of islamophobic conspiracy theorist mark steyn

the trouble is that it will remain a shitty thread as long as rouge stays in it

students who have just begun an ethics unit reserving an ethical judgement HOW DARE THEY

edit: actually, i'm not going to put more effort into replying to him than i did into replying to you, because really, he can't even post reams of drivel like formless can, so what's the use

Posted: **Thu Dec 08, 2011 2:41 am**

Addendum: Actually, to be bluntly cynical, I could even imagine American police refusing to respond to violent crime. The Supreme Court has already established precedent that the police do not have an inherent duty to protect citizens; I don't remember the exact case but it was pretty shocking.

EDIT: Seems I was wrong about that, here's the post I remember reading at SA:

A bigger problem was actually a decision by the lower court that was sustained by the Court (and as a result I don't have the text in front of me) that the police officers who failed to arrest the man involved were deserving of qualified immunity and thus unable to be sued. That means that not following statute (and before you pooh-pooh that this was merely a restraining order the acts of the husband violated criminal statute, it was a failure to arrest that led to the suit) is not considered negligence on the part of the police. Can in fact not even be brought to trial, because it is prima facie not negligence. That's huge. I can in fact say that this establishes that it can never be negligence because this failure to follow statute led directly to the deaths of three children and the man they were supposed to arrest. Clearly it is not an issue of scope.

The last problem is that precedent had already required that one could not bring a lawsuit against the State for any specific action or inaction without showing an infringed 'liberty' or property interest.

Which is to say, you could sue the State if police stole something from you, but unless you can show specific negligence (and inaction is demonstrated by this case not to be negligence) on the part of the police you can't sue them for loss of life.

The fun part is that it establishes this without actually saying that nonenforcement of a mandatory law that leads to death is legal, just that no one will ever have grounds to sue over it.

Posted: **Thu Dec 08, 2011 2:47 am**

Nietzslime wrote:
B-A-K-U-S-T-R-A wrote:
god yes

i saw him peek in a few days ago

i wish he were here for some of the iran threads

but i'm working up an inflammatory post because i recognized the name

denyse o'leary, canadian creationist and supporter of islamophobic conspiracy theorist mark steyn
the trouble is that it will remain a shitty thread as long as rouge stays in it

students who have just begun an ethics unit reserving an ethical judgement HOW DARE THEY

edit: actually, i'm not going to put more effort into replying to him than i did into replying to you, because really, he can't even post reams of drivel like formless can, so what's the use

woah, woah, woah, you aren't... effortposting when you reply to me?

an insult

but not as much as rouge's posts

EDIT: also, is it wrong that i'm not gonna post in the latest obama thread because i don't want to agree with jaerimuse at all

that's the sort of thing that can haunt you

Posted: **Thu Dec 08, 2011 3:00 am**

B-A-K-U-S-T-R-A wrote: woah, woah, woah, you aren't... effortposting when you reply to me?

an insult

but not as much as rouge's posts

EDIT: also, is it wrong that i'm not gonna post in the latest obama thread because i don't want to agree with jaerimuse at all

that's the sort of thing that can haunt you

it is a bitter fruit you must sometimes eat, bakustra, but bitterer still when you must let fruit pass from your lips

and i'm just not going to respond to rouge at this point since pretty clearly there's nothing whatsoever to be gained from the exercise

Posted: **Thu Dec 08, 2011 3:07 am**

is it weird that i am far more judgemental of people on the internet than people in real life

like i was just reading a post by mr friendly guy and naturally it was stupid and worthless and i abhor him

so like do i self-select for more interesting people in real life or can i just empathize with beings that aren't solely reams of dumb text to me

New Testingstan

Godammed SDN

Re: Godammed SDN

Re: Godammed SDN

Re: Godammed SDN

Re: Godammed SDN

Re: Godammed SDN

Re: Godammed SDN

Re: Godammed SDN

Re: Godammed SDN

Re: Godammed SDN

Re: Godammed SDN

Re: Godammed SDN

Re: Godammed SDN

Re: Godammed SDN

Re: Godammed SDN

Re: Godammed SDN

Re: Godammed SDN

Re: Godammed SDN

Re: Godammed SDN

Re: Godammed SDN

Re: Godammed SDN

Re: Godammed SDN

Re: Godammed SDN

Re: Godammed SDN

Re: Godammed SDN

Re: Godammed SDN