No, we're not mercenaries. We just carry weapons and kill things for the joy of the experience.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 23, 2013, 09:50:45 pmQuote from: What's New Wildebeest? on October 23, 2013, 09:49:50 pmQuote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 23, 2013, 09:38:34 pmQuote from: What's New Wildebeest? on October 23, 2013, 09:36:13 pm"anyone else on this board" hasn't had creeps make obscene remarks about their kids,Yeah? Do tell.And you are aiding and abetting them by publishing PI without permission. You feel good aboit yourself?Obscene remarks about your kids, scooter? I believe I missed that. Perhaps you can link me to it.I once had someone on this forum claim they were going to come to my house and stomp me. Strangely, they never showed... even after I pm'd them my address. Funny thing about internet tough guys.
Quote from: What's New Wildebeest? on October 23, 2013, 09:49:50 pmQuote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 23, 2013, 09:38:34 pmQuote from: What's New Wildebeest? on October 23, 2013, 09:36:13 pm"anyone else on this board" hasn't had creeps make obscene remarks about their kids,Yeah? Do tell.And you are aiding and abetting them by publishing PI without permission. You feel good aboit yourself?Obscene remarks about your kids, scooter? I believe I missed that. Perhaps you can link me to it.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 23, 2013, 09:38:34 pmQuote from: What's New Wildebeest? on October 23, 2013, 09:36:13 pm"anyone else on this board" hasn't had creeps make obscene remarks about their kids,Yeah? Do tell.And you are aiding and abetting them by publishing PI without permission. You feel good aboit yourself?
Quote from: What's New Wildebeest? on October 23, 2013, 09:36:13 pm"anyone else on this board" hasn't had creeps make obscene remarks about their kids,Yeah? Do tell.
"anyone else on this board" hasn't had creeps make obscene remarks about their kids,
Quote from: Hoopla on October 23, 2013, 09:57:58 pmQuote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 23, 2013, 09:50:45 pmQuote from: What's New Wildebeest? on October 23, 2013, 09:49:50 pmQuote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 23, 2013, 09:38:34 pmQuote from: What's New Wildebeest? on October 23, 2013, 09:36:13 pm"anyone else on this board" hasn't had creeps make obscene remarks about their kids,Yeah? Do tell.And you are aiding and abetting them by publishing PI without permission. You feel good aboit yourself?Obscene remarks about your kids, scooter? I believe I missed that. Perhaps you can link me to it.I once had someone on this forum claim they were going to come to my house and stomp me. Strangely, they never showed... even after I pm'd them my address. Funny thing about internet tough guys.CU or GITM?
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 23, 2013, 09:50:45 pmQuote from: What's New Wildebeest? on October 23, 2013, 09:49:50 pmQuote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 23, 2013, 09:38:34 pmQuote from: What's New Wildebeest? on October 23, 2013, 09:36:13 pm"anyone else on this board" hasn't had creeps make obscene remarks about their kids,Yeah? Do tell.And you are aiding and abetting them by publishing PI without permission. You feel good aboit yourself?Obscene remarks about your kids, scooter? I believe I missed that. Perhaps you can link me to it.Have you forgotten about Agrippa who wanted to go out with my (then) 5 year old girl?You think that's funny?
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on October 23, 2013, 09:26:34 pmto be fair, I'm pretty sure the astroturfing programs they've paid for are primarily targeting twitter and facebook. He's not playing anchortext games with his links, either.I don't think he is, either, to be perfectly honest. Because he'd have been fired for incompetence years ago. He's convinced more people to be rabidy anti-prohibition than anything else. I know I went from being on the fence in 2010 (I was in favor of decriminalization but not really legalization) to wanting weed to be completely legalized in 2012.And I am reasonably certain that I am not alone in that.
to be fair, I'm pretty sure the astroturfing programs they've paid for are primarily targeting twitter and facebook. He's not playing anchortext games with his links, either.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 23, 2013, 09:30:29 pmQuote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on October 23, 2013, 09:26:34 pmto be fair, I'm pretty sure the astroturfing programs they've paid for are primarily targeting twitter and facebook. He's not playing anchortext games with his links, either.I don't think he is, either, to be perfectly honest. Because he'd have been fired for incompetence years ago. He's convinced more people to be rabidy anti-prohibition than anything else. I know I went from being on the fence in 2010 (I was in favor of decriminalization but not really legalization) to wanting weed to be completely legalized in 2012.And I am reasonably certain that I am not alone in that.I've been saying for over a year that sometimes I'm half-convinced that he's working for the legalization campaign, because he's sort of the one-man Westboro Baptist Church of prohibition.
Here's Agrippa's account.http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=4374I looked through the 6 pages of posts he has, and I didn't see anything like that. I may have missed it, in which case you could perhaps point it out?
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 23, 2013, 10:43:33 pmQuote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 23, 2013, 09:30:29 pmQuote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on October 23, 2013, 09:26:34 pmto be fair, I'm pretty sure the astroturfing programs they've paid for are primarily targeting twitter and facebook. He's not playing anchortext games with his links, either.I don't think he is, either, to be perfectly honest. Because he'd have been fired for incompetence years ago. He's convinced more people to be rabidy anti-prohibition than anything else. I know I went from being on the fence in 2010 (I was in favor of decriminalization but not really legalization) to wanting weed to be completely legalized in 2012.And I am reasonably certain that I am not alone in that.I've been saying for over a year that sometimes I'm half-convinced that he's working for the legalization campaign, because he's sort of the one-man Westboro Baptist Church of prohibition.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 23, 2013, 10:10:36 pmHere's Agrippa's account.http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=4374I looked through the 6 pages of posts he has, and I didn't see anything like that. I may have missed it, in which case you could perhaps point it out?Perhaps this?http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,18695.msg620883.html#msg620883
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 23, 2013, 09:37:05 pmQuote from: What's New Wildebeest? on October 23, 2013, 09:02:11 pmQuote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 23, 2013, 08:58:29 pmQuote from: What's New Wildebeest? on October 23, 2013, 08:49:20 pmQuote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 23, 2013, 08:44:25 pmAnd that one hit of weed will impair you for at least 10 days.Some employers are dicks. Employers in an 'at-will' state can fire you for looking at them the wrong way. An even-handed employer would look at the test along with the rest of the picture, If you tested positive, but have been a model employee, productive, timely, etc., you are very likely not going to get fired.But, employers should have tools available to them to catch the ones who are coming impaired and posing a risk to others. Do you disagree with that notion? If so, why?There you go, assuming facts not in evidence.Are you seriously arguing that employees never go to work impaired ever? Really?I'm seriously arguing that a piss test is not evidence of impairment. An argument that you have yet to address.I have addressed it, you don't like the answer.Employers are risk averse. ECH claims there is a reliable test for impairment, if so, then hopefully employers will use them when it is legal. Until all employers get there, they have to use the tools available and make their best judgement. Would you want to be responsible for someone who tested positive and caused a workplace accident that claimed another life?Or are you going to keep skirting that issue and pretending it doesn't exist?
Quote from: What's New Wildebeest? on October 23, 2013, 09:02:11 pmQuote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 23, 2013, 08:58:29 pmQuote from: What's New Wildebeest? on October 23, 2013, 08:49:20 pmQuote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 23, 2013, 08:44:25 pmAnd that one hit of weed will impair you for at least 10 days.Some employers are dicks. Employers in an 'at-will' state can fire you for looking at them the wrong way. An even-handed employer would look at the test along with the rest of the picture, If you tested positive, but have been a model employee, productive, timely, etc., you are very likely not going to get fired.But, employers should have tools available to them to catch the ones who are coming impaired and posing a risk to others. Do you disagree with that notion? If so, why?There you go, assuming facts not in evidence.Are you seriously arguing that employees never go to work impaired ever? Really?I'm seriously arguing that a piss test is not evidence of impairment. An argument that you have yet to address.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 23, 2013, 08:58:29 pmQuote from: What's New Wildebeest? on October 23, 2013, 08:49:20 pmQuote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 23, 2013, 08:44:25 pmAnd that one hit of weed will impair you for at least 10 days.Some employers are dicks. Employers in an 'at-will' state can fire you for looking at them the wrong way. An even-handed employer would look at the test along with the rest of the picture, If you tested positive, but have been a model employee, productive, timely, etc., you are very likely not going to get fired.But, employers should have tools available to them to catch the ones who are coming impaired and posing a risk to others. Do you disagree with that notion? If so, why?There you go, assuming facts not in evidence.Are you seriously arguing that employees never go to work impaired ever? Really?
Quote from: What's New Wildebeest? on October 23, 2013, 08:49:20 pmQuote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 23, 2013, 08:44:25 pmAnd that one hit of weed will impair you for at least 10 days.Some employers are dicks. Employers in an 'at-will' state can fire you for looking at them the wrong way. An even-handed employer would look at the test along with the rest of the picture, If you tested positive, but have been a model employee, productive, timely, etc., you are very likely not going to get fired.But, employers should have tools available to them to catch the ones who are coming impaired and posing a risk to others. Do you disagree with that notion? If so, why?There you go, assuming facts not in evidence.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 23, 2013, 08:44:25 pmAnd that one hit of weed will impair you for at least 10 days.Some employers are dicks. Employers in an 'at-will' state can fire you for looking at them the wrong way. An even-handed employer would look at the test along with the rest of the picture, If you tested positive, but have been a model employee, productive, timely, etc., you are very likely not going to get fired.But, employers should have tools available to them to catch the ones who are coming impaired and posing a risk to others. Do you disagree with that notion? If so, why?
And that one hit of weed will impair you for at least 10 days.
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 23, 2013, 10:48:47 pmQuote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 23, 2013, 10:10:36 pmHere's Agrippa's account.http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=4374I looked through the 6 pages of posts he has, and I didn't see anything like that. I may have missed it, in which case you could perhaps point it out?Perhaps this?http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,18695.msg620883.html#msg620883Yep. Dealt with.
Don't fucking judge me, I've got tentacles for a face.