OT: Gore's Son Arrested

Seems he was doing 100 mph and when he was pulled over had a bit of
pot and prescription drugs with him.

I'm hoping he gets only a stern lecture. Anything else would seem a
bit severe based on the new punishment guidelines set recently by the
current administration.

In article <1qhn83tj5bk9itrpdp1rq0cdtpt5csgt0r@4ax.com>,
d wells <d.wells40@gmail.com> wrote:

> Seems he was doing 100 mph and when he was pulled over had a bit of
> pot and prescription drugs with him.
>
> I'm hoping he gets only a stern lecture. Anything else would seem a
> bit severe based on the new punishment guidelines set recently by the
> current administration.

30 months is a pretty ugly sentence.
But if he pardons him, then I WILL lose faith.
That would be a bit much even for a Conservative lib' like me to
swallow. ;=p

But you know the draconian laws on pot. The kid will probably get 20
years...
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

"Omelet" <> But you know the draconian laws on pot. The kid will probably
get 20
> years...
> --

There should be a Constitutional Amendment that requires anyone whose family
has over ten million dollars in the bank to spend DOUBLE-TIME in prison.
Triple if they are billionaires.

"d wells" <> Seems he was doing 100 mph and when he was pulled over had a
bit of
> pot and prescription drugs with him.
>
Hopefully he will get 30 days in general population at the local jail. Bent
over the rail every night, learning why "whitey" deserves to be punished.

Too bad Paris was not allowed to show her colors in prison. You know she
would have been licking muff in five seconds or less.

On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 11:16:54 -0500, Omelet <omp_omelet@gmail.com>
wrote:

>In article <1qhn83tj5bk9itrpdp1rq0cdtpt5csgt0r@4ax.com>,
> d wells <d.wells40@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Seems he was doing 100 mph and when he was pulled over had a bit of
>> pot and prescription drugs with him.
>>
>> I'm hoping he gets only a stern lecture. Anything else would seem a
>> bit severe based on the new punishment guidelines set recently by the
>> current administration.
>
>30 months is a pretty ugly sentence.
>But if he pardons him, then I WILL lose faith.
>That would be a bit much even for a Conservative lib' like me to
>swallow. ;=p
>
>But you know the draconian laws on pot. The kid will probably get 20
>years...

Doesn't it depend on how much pot you have? Where I live a very small
amount for personal use is a 50 dollar fine. If you are like Snoop
Dog driving around with trash bags full on your Puff and Pass tour
than you are just looking for trouble. Where I live he would probably
lose his license and pay a fine.

On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 01:42:22 -0400, Shute <Shute@nowhere.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 11:16:54 -0500, Omelet <omp_omelet@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <1qhn83tj5bk9itrpdp1rq0cdtpt5csgt0r@4ax.com>,
>> d wells <d.wells40@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Seems he was doing 100 mph and when he was pulled over had a bit of
>>> pot and prescription drugs with him.
>>>
>>> I'm hoping he gets only a stern lecture. Anything else would seem a
>>> bit severe based on the new punishment guidelines set recently by the
>>> current administration.
>>
>>30 months is a pretty ugly sentence.
>>But if he pardons him, then I WILL lose faith.
>>That would be a bit much even for a Conservative lib' like me to
>>swallow. ;=p
>>
>>But you know the draconian laws on pot. The kid will probably get 20
>>years...
>
>Doesn't it depend on how much pot you have? Where I live a very small
>amount for personal use is a 50 dollar fine. If you are like Snoop
>Dog driving around with trash bags full on your Puff and Pass tour
>than you are just looking for trouble. Where I live he would probably
>lose his license and pay a fine.

In 1979-79 I was a Freshman in college at Miami of Ohio. As I recall
the city of Oxford would simply issue a ticket for possession of small
amounts of pot. It seemed pretty progressive at the time.

Of course, one of the guys in my dorm sold some MU security guys some
speed and he was expelled.

In article <pu0p83pnn8ocieov74np10smla8o3a6vqb@4ax.com>,
Shute <Shute@nowhere.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 11:16:54 -0500, Omelet <omp_omelet@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <1qhn83tj5bk9itrpdp1rq0cdtpt5csgt0r@4ax.com>,
> > d wells <d.wells40@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Seems he was doing 100 mph and when he was pulled over had a bit of
> >> pot and prescription drugs with him.
> >>
> >> I'm hoping he gets only a stern lecture. Anything else would seem a
> >> bit severe based on the new punishment guidelines set recently by the
> >> current administration.
> >
> >30 months is a pretty ugly sentence.
> >But if he pardons him, then I WILL lose faith.
> >That would be a bit much even for a Conservative lib' like me to
> >swallow. ;=p
> >
> >But you know the draconian laws on pot. The kid will probably get 20
> >years...
>
> Doesn't it depend on how much pot you have? Where I live a very small
> amount for personal use is a 50 dollar fine. If you are like Snoop
> Dog driving around with trash bags full on your Puff and Pass tour
> than you are just looking for trouble. Where I live he would probably
> lose his license and pay a fine.

Actually, he had a LOT more than just pot in the car...
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 07:57:29 -0500, Omelet <omp_omelet@gmail.com>
wrote:

>In article <pu0p83pnn8ocieov74np10smla8o3a6vqb@4ax.com>,
> Shute <Shute@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 11:16:54 -0500, Omelet <omp_omelet@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <1qhn83tj5bk9itrpdp1rq0cdtpt5csgt0r@4ax.com>,
>> > d wells <d.wells40@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Seems he was doing 100 mph and when he was pulled over had a bit of
>> >> pot and prescription drugs with him.
>> >>
>> >> I'm hoping he gets only a stern lecture. Anything else would seem a
>> >> bit severe based on the new punishment guidelines set recently by the
>> >> current administration.
>> >
>> >30 months is a pretty ugly sentence.
>> >But if he pardons him, then I WILL lose faith.
>> >That would be a bit much even for a Conservative lib' like me to
>> >swallow. ;=p
>> >
>> >But you know the draconian laws on pot. The kid will probably get 20
>> >years...
>>
>> Doesn't it depend on how much pot you have? Where I live a very small
>> amount for personal use is a 50 dollar fine. If you are like Snoop
>> Dog driving around with trash bags full on your Puff and Pass tour
>> than you are just looking for trouble. Where I live he would probably
>> lose his license and pay a fine.
>
>Actually, he had a LOT more than just pot in the car...

Then why pick him up on such a vague charge? They could have gotten
him for DUI or even a dealer charge. I really doubt he will do any
time. This is his second screw up. The third time they will probably
nail his balls to the wall.

On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 08:47:49 -0400, d wells <d.wells40@gmail.com>
wrote:

>In 1979-79 I was a Freshman in college at Miami of Ohio.

I am still trying to decipher that one.

>As I recall
>the city of Oxford would simply issue a ticket for possession of small
>amounts of pot. It seemed pretty progressive at the time.

The college of Miami of Ohio is located in Oxford. I guess I need to
smoke a dubbie for that to make sense.

>Of course, one of the guys in my dorm sold some MU security guys some
>speed and he was expelled.

I don't think the pot possession laws a are much different today.
They have lowered the amount considered for personal use. That means
a lot of people with small amounts of pot are getting dealer charges.
The biggest downside is despite the fine it is considered a criminal
charge as opposed to a civil violation like speeding ticket. That
could disqualify you from any positions where security is a concern.

On Jul 4, 12:16 pm, d wells <d.well...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Seems he was doing 100 mph and when he was pulled over had a bit of
> pot and prescription drugs with him.
>
> I'm hoping he gets only a stern lecture. Anything else would seem a
> bit severe based on the new punishment guidelines set recently by the
> current administration.



I really don't understand these people...why can't they just hit the
gym...honestly, I think working out solves like 50% of all mental/
emotional/whatever problems, in a way....

Prisoner at War <prisoner_at_war@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Jul 4, 12:16 pm, d wells <d.well...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Seems he was doing 100 mph and when he was pulled over had a bit of
>> pot and prescription drugs with him.
>>
>> I'm hoping he gets only a stern lecture. Anything else would seem a
>> bit severe based on the new punishment guidelines set recently by the
>> current administration.
>
>
>
>I really don't understand these people...why can't they just hit the
>gym...honestly, I think working out solves like 50% of all mental/
>emotional/whatever problems, in a way....

Obviously not for you.

d wells <d.wells40@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 01:42:22 -0400, Shute <Shute@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 11:16:54 -0500, Omelet <omp_omelet@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <1qhn83tj5bk9itrpdp1rq0cdtpt5csgt0r@4ax.com>,
>>> d wells <d.wells40@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Seems he was doing 100 mph and when he was pulled over had a bit of
>>>> pot and prescription drugs with him.
>>>>
>>>> I'm hoping he gets only a stern lecture. Anything else would seem a
>>>> bit severe based on the new punishment guidelines set recently by the
>>>> current administration.
>>>
>>>30 months is a pretty ugly sentence.
>>>But if he pardons him, then I WILL lose faith.
>>>That would be a bit much even for a Conservative lib' like me to
>>>swallow. ;=p
>>>
>>>But you know the draconian laws on pot. The kid will probably get 20
>>>years...
>>
>>Doesn't it depend on how much pot you have? Where I live a very small
>>amount for personal use is a 50 dollar fine. If you are like Snoop
>>Dog driving around with trash bags full on your Puff and Pass tour
>>than you are just looking for trouble. Where I live he would probably
>>lose his license and pay a fine.
>
>In 1979-79 I was a Freshman in college at Miami of Ohio. As I recall
>the city of Oxford would simply issue a ticket for possession of small
>amounts of pot. It seemed pretty progressive at the time.

There's nothing special about Oxford. It's state law since 1974.
Under 100 grams: minor misdemeanor, no jail, $100 maximum fine.
That's still the law, but with one nasty addition from the 1980s:
mandatory driver's license suspension of six months to five years.

Shute <Shute@nowhere.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 08:47:49 -0400, d wells <d.wells40@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>In 1979-79 I was a Freshman in college at Miami of Ohio.
>
>I am still trying to decipher that one.
>
>>As I recall
>>the city of Oxford would simply issue a ticket for possession of small
>>amounts of pot. It seemed pretty progressive at the time.
>
>The college of Miami of Ohio is located in Oxford. I guess I need to
>smoke a dubbie for that to make sense.

The fact that there's more than one university named Miami and more
than one city named Oxford is certainly something that would make your
head swim, Shute. If I told that Massachusetts was not the only state
with a Springfield, that there's one in Ohio, and that it's even the
capitol of Illinois, not Chicago, you'd probably lose consciousness.

On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 12:11:01 -0400, Shute <Shute@nowhere.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 08:47:49 -0400, d wells <d.wells40@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>In 1979-79 I was a Freshman in college at Miami of Ohio.
>
>I am still trying to decipher that one.
>
>>As I recall
>>the city of Oxford would simply issue a ticket for possession of small
>>amounts of pot. It seemed pretty progressive at the time.
>
>The college of Miami of Ohio is located in Oxford. I guess I need to
>smoke a dubbie for that to make sense.
>
It's Miami University and is located in Oxford, Ohio. If we say Miami
University too many people hear University of Miami which is located
in Miami, Florida.

Whenever Miami University appears in nationally televised sporting
events (so very rarely) they're always listed as Miami of Ohio (I
believe, I'm not a big sports watcher.)

"Miami was a University when Florida still belonged to the Spanish"
appears on some of the souvenirs you can buy in Oxford. It's the
University's way of saying "we were here first."


>>Of course, one of the guys in my dorm sold some MU security guys some
>>speed and he was expelled.
>
>I don't think the pot possession laws a are much different today.
>They have lowered the amount considered for personal use. That means
>a lot of people with small amounts of pot are getting dealer charges.
>The biggest downside is despite the fine it is considered a criminal
>charge as opposed to a civil violation like speeding ticket. That
>could disqualify you from any positions where security is a concern.

On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 00:01:44 -0400, JMW
<jmwilliams@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> wrote:

>d wells <d.wells40@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 01:42:22 -0400, Shute <Shute@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 11:16:54 -0500, Omelet <omp_omelet@gmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <1qhn83tj5bk9itrpdp1rq0cdtpt5csgt0r@4ax.com>,
>>>> d wells <d.wells40@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Seems he was doing 100 mph and when he was pulled over had a bit of
>>>>> pot and prescription drugs with him.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm hoping he gets only a stern lecture. Anything else would seem a
>>>>> bit severe based on the new punishment guidelines set recently by the
>>>>> current administration.
>>>>
>>>>30 months is a pretty ugly sentence.
>>>>But if he pardons him, then I WILL lose faith.
>>>>That would be a bit much even for a Conservative lib' like me to
>>>>swallow. ;=p
>>>>
>>>>But you know the draconian laws on pot. The kid will probably get 20
>>>>years...
>>>
>>>Doesn't it depend on how much pot you have? Where I live a very small
>>>amount for personal use is a 50 dollar fine. If you are like Snoop
>>>Dog driving around with trash bags full on your Puff and Pass tour
>>>than you are just looking for trouble. Where I live he would probably
>>>lose his license and pay a fine.
>>
>>In 1979-79 I was a Freshman in college at Miami of Ohio. As I recall
>>the city of Oxford would simply issue a ticket for possession of small
>>amounts of pot. It seemed pretty progressive at the time.
>
>There's nothing special about Oxford. It's state law since 1974.

It seemed special at the time, and looking back it was a rather
relxing place to be. Fifteen thousand kids, about my age, with similar
interests, half of them female. Beer was $2.00 a pitcher. If it
weren't for the pesky classes it would have, truly, been heaven on
earth.

>Under 100 grams: minor misdemeanor, no jail, $100 maximum fine.
>That's still the law, but with one nasty addition from the 1980s:
>mandatory driver's license suspension of six months to five years.

I remember thinking that the city of Oxford was probably giving the
kids a break because it was a college town. When I was older I
wondered how it could be left to cities to make those kinds of
decisions and figured the guys in my dorm, who seemed to be familiar
with the law, were either wrong or I'd misunderstood them.

It never occurred to me that the State of Ohio might be this laid
back. Maybe Gilligan was one to periodically make late-night munchy
runs in his youth (although it is uncommon for Democrats to inhale.)

On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 08:43:32 -0400, d wells <d.wells40@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 12:11:01 -0400, Shute <Shute@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 08:47:49 -0400, d wells <d.wells40@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In 1979-79 I was a Freshman in college at Miami of Ohio.
>>
>>I am still trying to decipher that one.

They didn't cover calendars until Junior year.

>"Miami was a University when Florida still belonged to the Spanish"
>appears on some of the souvenirs you can buy in Oxford. It's the
>University's way of saying "we were here first."

Florida doesn't belong to the Spansih *now*???

d wells <d.wells40@gmail.com> wrote:

> JMW <jmwilliams@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> wrote:
>
>>d wells <d.wells40@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Shute <Shute@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Omelet <omp_omelet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> d wells <d.wells40@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Seems he was doing 100 mph and when he was pulled over had a bit of
>>>>>> pot and prescription drugs with him.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm hoping he gets only a stern lecture. Anything else would seem a
>>>>>> bit severe based on the new punishment guidelines set recently by the
>>>>>> current administration.
>>>>>
>>>>>30 months is a pretty ugly sentence.
>>>>>But if he pardons him, then I WILL lose faith.
>>>>>That would be a bit much even for a Conservative lib' like me to
>>>>>swallow. ;=p
>>>>>
>>>>>But you know the draconian laws on pot. The kid will probably get 20
>>>>>years...
>>>>
>>>>Doesn't it depend on how much pot you have? Where I live a very small
>>>>amount for personal use is a 50 dollar fine. If you are like Snoop
>>>>Dog driving around with trash bags full on your Puff and Pass tour
>>>>than you are just looking for trouble. Where I live he would probably
>>>>lose his license and pay a fine.
>>>
>>>In 1979-79 I was a Freshman in college at Miami of Ohio. As I recall
>>>the city of Oxford would simply issue a ticket for possession of small
>>>amounts of pot. It seemed pretty progressive at the time.
>>
>>There's nothing special about Oxford. It's state law since 1974.
>
>It seemed special at the time, and looking back it was a rather
>relxing place to be. Fifteen thousand kids, about my age, with similar
>interests, half of them female. Beer was $2.00 a pitcher. If it
>weren't for the pesky classes it would have, truly, been heaven on
>earth.
>
>>Under 100 grams: minor misdemeanor, no jail, $100 maximum fine.
>>That's still the law, but with one nasty addition from the 1980s:
>>mandatory driver's license suspension of six months to five years.
>
>I remember thinking that the city of Oxford was probably giving the
>kids a break because it was a college town. When I was older I
>wondered how it could be left to cities to make those kinds of
>decisions and figured the guys in my dorm, who seemed to be familiar
>with the law, were either wrong or I'd misunderstood them.
>
>It never occurred to me that the State of Ohio might be this laid
>back. Maybe Gilligan was one to periodically make late-night munchy
>runs in his youth (although it is uncommon for Democrats to inhale.)

Different time; different norms. The law changed during my freshman
year in college. It made total sense given the prevailing social
norms.

On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 22:44:44 -0400, JMW
<jmwilliams@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> wrote:

>d wells <d.wells40@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> JMW <jmwilliams@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> wrote:
>>
>>>d wells <d.wells40@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Shute <Shute@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Omelet <omp_omelet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> d wells <d.wells40@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Seems he was doing 100 mph and when he was pulled over had a bit of
>>>>>>> pot and prescription drugs with him.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm hoping he gets only a stern lecture. Anything else would seem a
>>>>>>> bit severe based on the new punishment guidelines set recently by the
>>>>>>> current administration.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>30 months is a pretty ugly sentence.
>>>>>>But if he pardons him, then I WILL lose faith.
>>>>>>That would be a bit much even for a Conservative lib' like me to
>>>>>>swallow. ;=p
>>>>>>
>>>>>>But you know the draconian laws on pot. The kid will probably get 20
>>>>>>years...
>>>>>
>>>>>Doesn't it depend on how much pot you have? Where I live a very small
>>>>>amount for personal use is a 50 dollar fine. If you are like Snoop
>>>>>Dog driving around with trash bags full on your Puff and Pass tour
>>>>>than you are just looking for trouble. Where I live he would probably
>>>>>lose his license and pay a fine.
>>>>
>>>>In 1979-79 I was a Freshman in college at Miami of Ohio. As I recall
>>>>the city of Oxford would simply issue a ticket for possession of small
>>>>amounts of pot. It seemed pretty progressive at the time.
>>>
>>>There's nothing special about Oxford. It's state law since 1974.
>>
>>It seemed special at the time, and looking back it was a rather
>>relxing place to be. Fifteen thousand kids, about my age, with similar
>>interests, half of them female. Beer was $2.00 a pitcher. If it
>>weren't for the pesky classes it would have, truly, been heaven on
>>earth.
>>
>>>Under 100 grams: minor misdemeanor, no jail, $100 maximum fine.
>>>That's still the law, but with one nasty addition from the 1980s:
>>>mandatory driver's license suspension of six months to five years.
>>
>>I remember thinking that the city of Oxford was probably giving the
>>kids a break because it was a college town. When I was older I
>>wondered how it could be left to cities to make those kinds of
>>decisions and figured the guys in my dorm, who seemed to be familiar
>>with the law, were either wrong or I'd misunderstood them.
>>
>>It never occurred to me that the State of Ohio might be this laid
>>back. Maybe Gilligan was one to periodically make late-night munchy
>>runs in his youth (although it is uncommon for Democrats to inhale.)
>
>Different time; different norms. The law changed during my freshman
>year in college. It made total sense given the prevailing social
>norms.

Things were very different back in the early sixties when you were a
freshman John. If you remember, homosexuality was an indictable crime,
and political correctness hadn't been invented!

Have a great weekend my friend - I am! ;o)

(I've just had scallops for lunch, with a very passable chilled rosé,
while watching the NZ v SA rugby international; life is good.)

In article <8o3v83tqaqui8a5hpft4j4evtqskmpogjt@4ax.com>,
Charles <jrh@msn.com> wrote:

> Have a great weekend my friend - I am! ;o)
>
> (I've just had scallops for lunch, with a very passable chilled rosé,
> while watching the NZ v SA rugby international; life is good.)

Decadent dude. ;-)

I've not has scallops for a good long while now.
They use some sort of detestable preservative chemical on them that
bloody RUINS them for my tastes around here! It's horribly bitter.

If I want good Scallops, I have to take a 4 hour drive to the coast.

Am still having a good weekend tho'. I picked up a Smithfield ham
yesterday for $1.19 per lb. and had the meatcutters slice it into steaks.

Not sure what beverage it'll be served with yet, but I've always felt
that broasted ham steaks went best with cocktails. I'll most likely
serve them with pineapple slices.
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

Om wrote:
[...]

> Actually, he had a LOT more than just pot in the car...

Obviously placed there by the Bush administration. /Henry

(Dubya is REALLY tweaked by that Academy Award.)

--
Curt

d wells wrote:
> Seems he was doing 100 mph and when he was pulled over had a bit of
> pot and prescription drugs with him.

Duh. He was speeding to get that pot to the nearest police station, of
course.

"Officer, I'd like to report some marijuana in my car. No, sir, I have
no idea how it got there, but I demand that you take this evil weed
away. I would have burned it myself, but that would've been
irresponsible. Thank you for your assistance in destroying this bane
to American society."

Of course, it's difficult to make that speech with your face shoved
into the macadam.

And the prescription drugs? Naturally, those drugs were prescribed to
the young man. Probably for a mild rash or perhaps, oh, pain related
to a sports injury.

> I'm hoping he gets only a stern lecture. Anything else would seem a
> bit severe based on the new punishment guidelines set recently by the
> current administration.

Uh oh.

--
Curt

Shute wrote:
[...]

> <snip> Where I live he would probably
> lose his license and pay a fine.

Probably doesn't sound exactly definitive, Shute.

Schuh's advice re knowing your meds is applicable to your laws, too. A
painful surprise when what you thought would be a fifty-dollar fine
magically transforms into a $1600 fine, a year's worth of probation,
20 hours of community service, and potential for jail time.

Ahem.

--
Curt

Shute wrote:
> d wells wrote:
>
> >In 1979-79 I was a Freshman in college at Miami of Ohio.
>
> I am still trying to decipher that one.

Started classes in January 1979 and transferred out December 1979? A
typo? Other?

[...]

> The college of Miami of Ohio is located in Oxford. I guess I need to
> smoke a dubbie for that to make sense.

Spelling it d-u-b-b-i-e is NOT going to shake their trail. The cops
are ON TO YOU, Shute!

But, hey, Pennsylvania has Indiana University of Pennsylvania. Miami
of Ohio makes just as much, maybe more, sense.

[...]

--
Curt

Prisoner at War wrote:

re drug abuse

> I really don't understand these people...why can't they just hit the
> gym...honestly, I think working out solves like 50% of all mental/
> emotional/whatever problems, in a way....

Couldn't hurt, right? Well, barring any gym injuries or depression
brought about by feeling intimidated by other lifters... PLANET
FITNESS, YOU ARE SO RIGHT! (cough)

I was reading Wiki's William James entry recently. Check this out:

"James is one of the two namesakes of the James-Lange theory of
emotion, which he formulated independently of Carl Lange in the 1880s.
The theory holds that emotion is the mind's perception of
physiological conditions that result from some stimulus. In James' oft-
cited example; it is not that we see a bear, fear it, and run. We see
a bear and run, consequently we fear the bear. Our mind's perception
of the higher adrenaline level, heartbeat, etc., is the emotion."

See also:

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/au...iam_james.html

--
Curt

d wells wrote:
[...]

> I remember thinking that the city of Oxford was probably giving the
> kids a break because it was a college town. When I was older I
> wondered how it could be left to cities to make those kinds of
> decisions and figured the guys in my dorm, who seemed to be familiar
> with the law, were either wrong or I'd misunderstood them.

I'm convinced that it depends on the officer a lot of the time.
Sometimes they're in a position to look the other way and other times
they're boxed in by a particular fellow officer. Mood swings - "My
frigging wife threw out all my [insert variable 'here']!!! I can't
WAIT to bust someone!" - etc., I'm guessing, factor in as well. And,
definitely, if you know the officer and the officer is feeling
generous, that can keep you out of jams or at least minor traffic
fines. Definitely.

I was in Columbus, Ohio (not Oxford), for the Arnold Class the one
year and broke some traffic law. The officer who pulled me over gave
me an out, however. Or at least that's how I perceived it. He offered,
something like, "I guess you didn't see that sign back there." To
which I immediately, meekly, and innocently responded, "EFF YOU, YOU
MORON, WHY DON'T YOU USE YOUR REEEEAL NAME?!!!"

Oh, wait, I think that was from a post I read. Never mind. I
immediately replied...

"No, officer. I did not see the sign."

Probably said I was sorry, too. Regardless, I was grateful that the
officer saw fit to make my stay in Ohio fine-free. I'd say it was an
easy choice for the officer to make, especially considering no Ohioans
were injured by whatever traffic misdeed I'd committed.

> It never occurred to me that the State of Ohio might be this laid
> back. Maybe Gilligan was one to periodically make late-night munchy
> runs in his youth (although it is uncommon for Democrats to inhale.)

heh )

Michael "You bet I did. And I enjoyed it." Bloomberg being a notable
exception?

Barack Obama, too.

--
Curt

On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 08:12:34 -0700, Curt <curtjames@gmail.com> wrote:

>But, hey, Pennsylvania has Indiana University of Pennsylvania. Miami
>of Ohio makes just as much, maybe more, sense.

Plus John lives in Ohio and he never makes any sense.

On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 09:01:39 -0400, d wells <d.wells40@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 00:01:44 -0400, JMW
><jmwilliams@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> wrote:
>
>>d wells <d.wells40@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 01:42:22 -0400, Shute <Shute@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 11:16:54 -0500, Omelet <omp_omelet@gmail.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In article <1qhn83tj5bk9itrpdp1rq0cdtpt5csgt0r@4ax.com>,
>>>>> d wells <d.wells40@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Seems he was doing 100 mph and when he was pulled over had a bit of
>>>>>> pot and prescription drugs with him.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm hoping he gets only a stern lecture. Anything else would seem a
>>>>>> bit severe based on the new punishment guidelines set recently by the
>>>>>> current administration.
>>>>>
>>>>>30 months is a pretty ugly sentence.
>>>>>But if he pardons him, then I WILL lose faith.
>>>>>That would be a bit much even for a Conservative lib' like me to
>>>>>swallow. ;=p
>>>>>
>>>>>But you know the draconian laws on pot. The kid will probably get 20
>>>>>years...
>>>>
>>>>Doesn't it depend on how much pot you have? Where I live a very small
>>>>amount for personal use is a 50 dollar fine. If you are like Snoop
>>>>Dog driving around with trash bags full on your Puff and Pass tour
>>>>than you are just looking for trouble. Where I live he would probably
>>>>lose his license and pay a fine.
>>>
>>>In 1979-79 I was a Freshman in college at Miami of Ohio. As I recall
>>>the city of Oxford would simply issue a ticket for possession of small
>>>amounts of pot. It seemed pretty progressive at the time.
>>
>>There's nothing special about Oxford. It's state law since 1974.
>
>It seemed special at the time, and looking back it was a rather
>relxing place to be. Fifteen thousand kids, about my age, with similar
>interests, half of them female. Beer was $2.00 a pitcher. If it
>weren't for the pesky classes it would have, truly, been heaven on
>earth.
>
>>Under 100 grams: minor misdemeanor, no jail, $100 maximum fine.
>>That's still the law, but with one nasty addition from the 1980s:
>>mandatory driver's license suspension of six months to five years.
>
>I remember thinking that the city of Oxford was probably giving the
>kids a break because it was a college town. When I was older I
>wondered how it could be left to cities to make those kinds of
>decisions and figured the guys in my dorm, who seemed to be familiar
>with the law, were either wrong or I'd misunderstood them.
>
>It never occurred to me that the State of Ohio might be this laid
>back. Maybe Gilligan was one to periodically make late-night munchy
>runs in his youth (although it is uncommon for Democrats to inhale.)

What about the song where he says "five dead in Ohio"? It was a song
about government folks shooting into a crowd of hippies. I assume it
was based on a real life incident.

On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 08:42:11 -0700, Curt <curtjames@gmail.com> wrote:

>d wells wrote:
>[...]
>
>> I remember thinking that the city of Oxford was probably giving the
>> kids a break because it was a college town. When I was older I
>> wondered how it could be left to cities to make those kinds of
>> decisions and figured the guys in my dorm, who seemed to be familiar
>> with the law, were either wrong or I'd misunderstood them.
>
>I'm convinced that it depends on the officer a lot of the time.
>Sometimes they're in a position to look the other way and other times
>they're boxed in by a particular fellow officer. Mood swings - "My
>frigging wife threw out all my [insert variable 'here']!!! I can't
>WAIT to bust someone!" - etc., I'm guessing, factor in as well. And,
>definitely, if you know the officer and the officer is feeling
>generous, that can keep you out of jams or at least minor traffic
>fines. Definitely.
>
>I was in Columbus, Ohio (not Oxford), for the Arnold Class the one
>year and broke some traffic law. The officer who pulled me over gave
>me an out, however. Or at least that's how I perceived it. He offered,
>something like, "I guess you didn't see that sign back there." To
>which I immediately, meekly, and innocently responded, "EFF YOU, YOU
>MORON, WHY DON'T YOU USE YOUR REEEEAL NAME?!!!"
>
>Oh, wait, I think that was from a post I read. Never mind. I
>immediately replied...
>
>"No, officer. I did not see the sign."
>
>Probably said I was sorry, too. Regardless, I was grateful that the
>officer saw fit to make my stay in Ohio fine-free. I'd say it was an
>easy choice for the officer to make, especially considering no Ohioans
>were injured by whatever traffic misdeed I'd committed.
>
>> It never occurred to me that the State of Ohio might be this laid
>> back. Maybe Gilligan was one to periodically make late-night munchy
>> runs in his youth (although it is uncommon for Democrats to inhale.)
>
>heh )
>
>Michael "You bet I did. And I enjoyed it." Bloomberg being a notable
>exception?
>
>Barack Obama, too.

If you really want to butter up a cop then say sir or ma'am. I have
seen a few people do that and they perk right up. Cops love it when
you kiss their ass. That is why John loves the business so much.
He loves guys kissing his ass.

Shute wrote:
> Curt wrote:
[...]

> >I <snip> broke some traffic law. The officer who pulled me over gave
> >me an out, however. Or at least that's how I perceived it. He offered,
> >something like, "I guess you didn't see that sign back there." To
> >which I immediately, meekly, and innocently <snip> replied...
>
> >"No, officer. I did not see the sign."
>
> >Probably said I was sorry, too. Regardless, I was grateful that the
> >officer saw fit to make my stay in Ohio fine-free. <snip>

> If you really want to butter up a cop then say sir or ma'am. I have
> seen a few people do that and they perk right up. Cops love it when
> you kiss their ass. <snip>

Give the choice between receiving friction or respect, which would be
your preference?

Actually, I mighta said Sir. There was a book out years ago on how to
beat a ticket and I believe one bit of advice was to use the officer's
specific rank, but I'm sure Sir would be an appreciate catch-all.

Don't you have a story about getting a little forgiveness from the
local police?

Without kissing ass, being a policeman can be an absolutely stressful
job at times. Imagine approaching a car and not knowing what is
waiting for you? How many occupations are there where you're required
to put people in handcuffs against their will? When's the last time
someone shot at a postal worker? Wait, that's a bad example. Uh, an
ice cream parlor attendant?

"WHAT?! I didn't ask for SPRINKLES!!! And this isn't a *sugar* cone!
Damn you!" -=BLAM! BLAM! BLAM!=-

Anyway, I've paid several traffic tickets, but I've been given a good
number of warnings without fines, too. Like I said, it depends on the
officer. And, yeah, I suspect your level of attitude as well as your
offense.

Offering a Sir or Ma'am seems like a reasonable thing to do.

--
Curt

Shute <Shute@nowhere.com> wrote:

>d wells <d.wells40@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>It never occurred to me that the State of Ohio might be this laid
>>back. Maybe Gilligan was one to periodically make late-night munchy
>>runs in his youth (although it is uncommon for Democrats to inhale.)
>
>What about the song where he says "five dead in Ohio"? It was a song
>about government folks shooting into a crowd of hippies. I assume it
>was based on a real life incident.

It's "FOUR dead in Ohio." Kent State University, May 4, 1970. And it
was during the Rhodes administration, not Gilligan's. One of the most
famous news photographs in American history:

http://www.uiowa.edu/policult/assets.../KentState.jpg

Every time I think you couldn't possibly be more stupid, you manage to
amaze me.

On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 16:12:48 -0700, Curt <curtjames@gmail.com> wrote:

>Give the choice between receiving friction or respect, which would be
>your preference?

You can still be nice without kissing their ass. For me the best
thing that works is to just be honest. If you try to argue with them
then you are going to get a ticket. Unless what you are saying is the
truth. Sometimes it is the cops that are lying and I am not going go
along with it.

>Actually, I mighta said Sir. There was a book out years ago on how to
>beat a ticket and I believe one bit of advice was to use the officer's
>specific rank, but I'm sure Sir would be an appreciate catch-all.

Former military folk tend to say it.

>Don't you have a story about getting a little forgiveness from the
>local police?

I have plenty. Most will reach some sort of a compromise. For
instance in this case he may have been doing 150 and they reduce it to
100 mph so it won't look as bad. Many will give out warning tickets.

However I grew up in a small town where the cops are assholes. If you
see a guy in shades than forget any kind of compromise. State cops
are also less forgiving.

>Without kissing ass, being a policeman can be an absolutely stressful
>job at times. Imagine approaching a car and not knowing what is
>waiting for you? How many occupations are there where you're required
>to put people in handcuffs against their will? When's the last time
>someone shot at a postal worker? Wait, that's a bad example. Uh, an
>ice cream parlor attendant?

I had a guy in Boston approach my car crouching with one hand on the
gun. He had pulled me over late at night for running a stop light.
He didn't know who might be in the car.

>"WHAT?! I didn't ask for SPRINKLES!!! And this isn't a *sugar* cone!
>Damn you!" -=BLAM! BLAM! BLAM!=-

I saw a copy at Dunkin Donuts hitting on a 16 year old girl. That
just isn't right.

>Anyway, I've paid several traffic tickets, but I've been given a good
>number of warnings without fines, too. Like I said, it depends on the
>officer. And, yeah, I suspect your level of attitude as well as your
>offense.
>
>Offering a Sir or Ma'am seems like a reasonable thing to do.

Your attitude is a big part. Or if you are good looking women it
helps too.

On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 08:01:39 -0700, Curt <curtjames@gmail.com> wrote:

>Shute wrote:
>[...]
>
>> <snip> Where I live he would probably
>> lose his license and pay a fine.
>
>Probably doesn't sound exactly definitive, Shute.
>
>Schuh's advice re knowing your meds is applicable to your laws, too. A
>painful surprise when what you thought would be a fifty-dollar fine
>magically transforms into a $1600 fine, a year's worth of probation,
>20 hours of community service, and potential for jail time.
>
>Ahem.

I would be more concerned about what I was taking with the meds. I
saw someone on a show recently saying they didn't know prescription
drugs could be harmful. I guess they don't understand the concept of
why they are prescription in the first place. If he is taking
combinations along with illegal substances it could be deadly.

In article <mfr09314pke28v4o6bfk69625nou5ve6cb@4ax.com>,
Shute <Shute@nowhere.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 08:01:39 -0700, Curt <curtjames@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Shute wrote:
> >[...]
> >
> >> <snip> Where I live he would probably
> >> lose his license and pay a fine.
> >
> >Probably doesn't sound exactly definitive, Shute.
> >
> >Schuh's advice re knowing your meds is applicable to your laws, too. A
> >painful surprise when what you thought would be a fifty-dollar fine
> >magically transforms into a $1600 fine, a year's worth of probation,
> >