A while back, I saw one titled 'Man gets ticket for going 2 MPH UNDER the speed limit!'. So I went and read the article. What really happened was that the person was riding in the left lane, at less than the speed limit, and people were passing him on the right. So an LEO cited him for 'impeding traffic', which is quite different than getting a ticket for driving at any specific speed. '
As an aside the US has 5% of the world population yet 31% of the worlds non terrorist/warfare gun related deaths.
And it was great the way you hooked Max and as far as I could tell, you did not even use any bait! Maybe someone else 'primed' him and he just happened to be gobsmacked by your post?
But on a serious note, I do agree with Max regarding shortening headlines and actually think it is far worse than he describes. We alter headlines until they are simply not true.
after getting sucked in to reading all this bullcookies, i think the part about ducks made more sense than all the rest of this diatribe
<snip>
I get so angry at so-called "news" reports because they are so slanted, biased, terse, braindead, opinionated, and often just plain WRONG that I tend to not even want to consume any of it at all. And it would be one thing if it were just incompetence, but it is usually very intentional to push a specific political agenda or at least to just sensationalize everything to death to get more "eyes."
He's pokin his head (easy boys) back in but not posting as far as I can tell. I'm starting to think this is a trolling maneuver just to stir things up.
With that being said, I'm not going to nuke it or modify the subject line.
Welcome to America where you never have to worry about a foreign army invading. Please bring your own weapon because you can't have mine.
Well, once everyone stops posting in this thread I may or may not lock it. Depends how many I've had whilst making the decision.
Well if we can get away from V'Jim's drinking habits (as fascinating as that is) just for a minute.
I've done a little online research and I think I've found it, to both of you that are still interested ( ) here is a link.
You'll need to click on the links on that page for more info.
So, because he answered my PM and the info these links provide, I'm of the opinion that, although it maybe in vain on his part,
I don't think it's BS or... what was that wonderful word..OH yes..."codswallop". Your opinions may continue to differ.
I now return you to V'Jim's drinking...and what else?....Ducks..yes I think it was Ducks.
I am not interested in brake lawsuits nor Jim's drinking (especially because last I knew, he was drinking gin & tonic to ward off any possible malaria attacks) but frankly I am hanging my head in shame a little bit about the continuing use of that word.... you know, cod-------. I mean, isn't that the stuff that a male cod provides to female..... I mean, this is a family forum, right? And is that not a 'bad word' to expose children to or even speak about in polite, mixed company? I would think that word would be at least an 'R' rated word, and depending on exactly what the cod were doi..... I mean, depending on where the cod------- ended up, would that not really carry an NC-17 rating?
Just sayin'. Maybe you should look into that further Marty, you know, just be on the safe side?
Brian
..... frankly I am hanging my head in shame a little bit about the continuing use of that word.... you know, cod-------. I mean, isn't that the stuff that a male cod provides to female..... I mean, this is a family forum, right?