http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/calif-student-who-drug-agents-accidentally-left-in-cell-for-5-days-says-he-drank-own-urine/2012/05/02/gIQA2xtcvT_story.html
QuoteSAN DIEGO — A San Diego college student who federal drug agents forgot and left in a holding cell for five days without food, water or access to a toilet said Tuesday that he drank his own urine to survive.
Daniel Chong also said that he bit into his glasses to break them and tried to use a shard to scratch "Sorry Mom" into his arm, according to U-T San Diego (http://bit.ly/JRlSr8).
The 24-year-old University of California, San Diego, engineering student was swept up as one of nine suspects in an April 21 drug raid that netted 18,000 ecstasy pills, other drugs and weapons.
Chong said federal Drug Enforcement Administration agents told him he would be let go. One agent even promised to drive him home from the DEA field office in Kearny Mesa, he said.
Instead, he was returned to a holding cell to await release. DEA spokeswoman Amy Roderick said he was accidentally left there.
Lovely:
Quotehe could hear the muffled voices of agents outside his five-by-10-foot windowless cell and the door of the next cell being opened and closed. He kicked and screamed as loud as he could, but apparently, his cries for help went unheard....
..."When they opened the door, one of them said 'Here's the water you've been asking for," Chong said. "But I was pretty out of it at the time."
Here's the part I love the best:
QuoteChong also ingested a white powder DEA agents said was left in the cell accidentally and later identified as methamphetamine.
They're so fucking cavalier about it. "We
accidentally left him there...and we
accidentally left some meth in the cell too." Yeah, and the
accidentally didn't hear him screaming "WATER!" and "HELP!" for five days but someone walked in and said "Here's the water you've been asking for?" Were they aware he was in there or not?
You have to expect some casualties in The War on Drugs.
"Oh, we accidentally left him in a cell with meth for 5 days." Eggs, omelets.
I for one, am glad that we are doing all we can to stomp out the scourge of drugs in America, even if it means that we have to essentially bury people alive with said drugs. As a lesson to the others.
Yes, prohibition is the only possible route. We have to show these little fuckers who the boss is.
Or they might hurt themselves or something.
Is he going to sue the dea?
Quote from: The Twiddlerat0r on May 02, 2012, 03:17:25 PM
Is he going to sue the dea?
if he does, they'll probably throw the book at him. If not, they might just fine him and try to hide this as much as possible
an unofficial plea bargain
Ah, but the kid now is clearly a dangerous meth addict.
The DEA have their guy!
Quote from: Cain on May 02, 2012, 03:56:11 PM
Ah, but the kid now is clearly a dangerous meth addict.
The DEA have their guy!
My thought exactly. It just fell into their lap! you know,
accidentally.
Quote from: navkat on May 02, 2012, 02:57:09 PM
They're so fucking cavalier about it. "We accidentally left him there...and we accidentally left some meth in the cell too." Yeah, and the accidentally didn't hear him screaming "WATER!" and "HELP!" for five days but someone walked in and said "Here's the water you've been asking for?" Were they aware he was in there or not?
He obviously didn't full out the proper forms
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on May 02, 2012, 04:39:34 PM
Quote from: navkat on May 02, 2012, 02:57:09 PM
They're so fucking cavalier about it. "We accidentally left him there...and we accidentally left some meth in the cell too." Yeah, and the accidentally didn't hear him screaming "WATER!" and "HELP!" for five days but someone walked in and said "Here's the water you've been asking for?" Were they aware he was in there or not?
He obviously didn't full out the proper forms
And there's no doubt he had the wrong values. He should consider himself lucky to have gotten off so lightly...Most times, they don't pull you out of the oubliette. They just sweep the bones up every other generation or so.
Hell, speaking as a Subgenius, getting locked in a box with drugs?
SIGN ME UP! I know there's no food, but after enough meth, I can always eat the bugs I pick from under my skin.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 02, 2012, 04:46:29 PM
Hell, speaking as a Subgenius, getting locked in a box with drugs?
SIGN ME UP! I know there's no food, but after enough meth, I can always eat the bugs I pick from under my skin.
:puts sandwich down:
Wow....
Quote from: Bruce Twillis on May 02, 2012, 04:53:35 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 02, 2012, 04:46:29 PM
Hell, speaking as a Subgenius, getting locked in a box with drugs?
SIGN ME UP! I know there's no food, but after enough meth, I can always eat the bugs I pick from under my skin.
:puts sandwich down:
You're just not ready for this century, are you?
And if anyone else got thrown in the holding cell, you could help them with the bugs beneath their skin.
Quote from: Cain on May 02, 2012, 05:24:53 PM
And if anyone else got thrown in the holding cell, you could help them with the bugs beneath their skin.
I don't think they put more than one person in each oubliette.
They should. Two or more, one bag of meth, and then take bets.
They could even use a phone to video the whole thing and upload it to Youtube.
You mean that the entire world could Pollice verso (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollice_verso) via Facebook likes?
Except instead of some singing competition it's two "drug offenders" in an oubliette with "accidental meth" and a webcam?
:america:
Exactly. Lots of money to be made there.
Quote from: Telarus on May 02, 2012, 05:34:52 PM
You mean that the entire world could (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollice_verso) via Facebook likes?
Except instead of some singing competition it's two "drug offenders" in an oubliette with "accidental meth" and a webcam?
:america:
i'd watch it.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 02, 2012, 03:00:57 PM
You have to expect some casualties in The War on Drugs.
"Oh, we accidentally left him in a cell with meth for 5 days." Eggs, omelets.
I for one, am glad that we are doing all we can to stomp out the scourge of drugs in America, even if it means that we have to essentially bury people alive with said drugs. As a lesson to the others.
Yes, prohibition is the only possible route. We have to show these little fuckers who the boss is.
Or they might hurt themselves or something.
Meh, I don't think this was any kind of concerted "lesson". It's egregious human and systems error to be sure, and every single agent involved should lose their job, at a minimum. But I, probably not surprisingly, disagree with using this incident to paint the entire effort in the US to reduce substance abuse.
I dunno, seems like a pretty good metaphor for the whole clusterfucking thing to me.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on May 03, 2012, 12:28:49 AM
I dunno, seems like a pretty good metaphor for the whole clusterfucking thing to me.
"OVERFUNDED, OVERZEALOUS GOVERNMENT AGENCY GETS CARRIED AWAY. UNREASONABLY DETAINS AMERICAN PUBLIC AND FORGETS ABOUT THEM, LEAVING THEM BROKE, DEHYDRATED AND STARVING IN A POOL OF THEIR OWN FILTH WITH NO ACCESS TO ADEQUATE MEDICAL CARE AND ONLY THE VERY DRUGS THEY ARE BEING PAID TO ELIMINATE AS SUSTENANCE.
IN OTHER NEWS, THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ANNOUNCES A NEW ROUND OF PAY RAISES FOR ALL DOD EMPLOYEES..."
Eh, I've worked with plenty of good joes from the DEA. None of them would have left someone like that.
Quote from: Reverend What's-His-Name? on May 03, 2012, 03:04:15 AM
Eh, I've worked with plenty of good joes from the DEA. None of them would have left someone like that.
Or they give you the impression that they wouldn't OR they aren't assigned to anything that would put them in that situation so as to preserve the image of the DEA.
Quote from: Reverend What's-His-Name? on May 03, 2012, 12:24:38 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 02, 2012, 03:00:57 PM
You have to expect some casualties in The War on Drugs.
"Oh, we accidentally left him in a cell with meth for 5 days." Eggs, omelets.
I for one, am glad that we are doing all we can to stomp out the scourge of drugs in America, even if it means that we have to essentially bury people alive with said drugs. As a lesson to the others.
Yes, prohibition is the only possible route. We have to show these little fuckers who the boss is.
Or they might hurt themselves or something.
Meh, I don't think this was any kind of concerted "lesson". It's egregious human and systems error to be sure, and every single agent involved should lose their job, at a minimum. But I, probably not surprisingly, disagree with using this incident to paint the entire effort in the US to reduce substance abuse.
Actually, I prefer to use it to paint the seemingly endless policing agencies that operate with little or no oversight, and hire dumbasses who'd look more natural in jodpurs and jackboots. The DEA, INS, etc. There are too many different cops, and not enough, you know, rule of law.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 03, 2012, 03:24:46 AM
Quote from: Reverend What's-His-Name? on May 03, 2012, 12:24:38 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 02, 2012, 03:00:57 PM
You have to expect some casualties in The War on Drugs.
"Oh, we accidentally left him in a cell with meth for 5 days." Eggs, omelets.
I for one, am glad that we are doing all we can to stomp out the scourge of drugs in America, even if it means that we have to essentially bury people alive with said drugs. As a lesson to the others.
Yes, prohibition is the only possible route. We have to show these little fuckers who the boss is.
Or they might hurt themselves or something.
Meh, I don't think this was any kind of concerted "lesson". It's egregious human and systems error to be sure, and every single agent involved should lose their job, at a minimum. But I, probably not surprisingly, disagree with using this incident to paint the entire effort in the US to reduce substance abuse.
Actually, I prefer to use it to paint the seemingly endless policing agencies that operate with little or no oversight, and hire dumbasses who'd look more natural in jodpurs and jackboots. The DEA, INS, etc. There are too many different cops, and not enough, you know, rule of law.
SING IT LIKE YOU IN CHURCH, BROTHA HOWL.
Quote from: I am a Guru named Coyote on May 03, 2012, 03:22:59 AM
Quote from: Reverend What's-His-Name? on May 03, 2012, 03:04:15 AM
Eh, I've worked with plenty of good joes from the DEA. None of them would have left someone like that.
Or they give you the impression that they wouldn't OR they aren't assigned to anything that would put them in that situation so as to preserve the image of the DEA.
OR, the DEA isn't full of cavalier/incompetent douchebags despite popular opinion.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 03, 2012, 03:24:46 AM
Quote from: Reverend What's-His-Name? on May 03, 2012, 12:24:38 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 02, 2012, 03:00:57 PM
You have to expect some casualties in The War on Drugs.
"Oh, we accidentally left him in a cell with meth for 5 days." Eggs, omelets.
I for one, am glad that we are doing all we can to stomp out the scourge of drugs in America, even if it means that we have to essentially bury people alive with said drugs. As a lesson to the others.
Yes, prohibition is the only possible route. We have to show these little fuckers who the boss is.
Or they might hurt themselves or something.
Meh, I don't think this was any kind of concerted "lesson". It's egregious human and systems error to be sure, and every single agent involved should lose their job, at a minimum. But I, probably not surprisingly, disagree with using this incident to paint the entire effort in the US to reduce substance abuse.
Actually, I prefer to use it to paint the seemingly endless policing agencies that operate with little or no oversight, and hire dumbasses who'd look more natural in jodpurs and jackboots. The DEA, INS, etc. There are too many different cops, and not enough, you know, rule of law.
Or not enough oversite, or inadequate oversight, and if that is the case it definitely needs to be fixed. However high up the food chain this negligence goes, it should be dealt with. If the RAIC of that state had some knowledge or involvement, they should be canned as well. But I just want to balance that with the fact there are plenty of DEA agents out there who are just trying their best to do their job to get drugs out of communities and neighborhoods. And it isn't all through raids and jackbootery. I just got done working with the DEA on a very peaceful and effective campaign to get expired Rx drugs out of homes which tend to lead to abuse. There's a lot more to the DEA than just busting down doors and "cracking eggs".
Quote from: Reverend What's-His-Name? on May 03, 2012, 11:00:34 AM
Or not enough oversite, or inadequate oversight, and if that is the case it definitely needs to be fixed. However high up the food chain this negligence goes, it should be dealt with.
If it were my call, I'd loudly and publicly fire the head of the DEA. Her replacement will be inclined to root out the rot.
Here's the head of the DEA:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michele_Leonhart
Old people should die in pain:
QuoteDuring Leonhart's testimony before the Judiciary Committee, she was questioned by a member of the Committee on Aging, Senator Herb Kohl (D-WI), about her policy for nurses prescribing painkillers for patients in nursing homes. The problem of DEA interference during Leonhart's acting administratorship with the prescription of painkillers by nurses in nursing homes had come before the Committee on Aging.
NO RESEARCH THAT CONTRADICTS OUR RELIGION:
QuoteLeonhart has consistently turned down research into the therapeutic and medicinal benefits of marijuana, and has a track record of undermining state law with regard to legal medical marijuana.
That's not "consistently against the use of medical marijuana", that's "turned down
research" into medical marijuana. We can't have heretics to the cause running around all over the place.
Is it "homegrown terrorism" if we bombard her with snail mail and photos of ing old people and cancerous children?
Also, she wants me to die without my ritalin too, apparently. No more short-acting stimulants for us ADD-PI "fakers" allowed, apparently. That's okay, I know how to turn my washing machine into a centrifuge if need be.
Thanks a lot, cunt. Now I might be forced to hoover my shit to maintain therapeutic levels of my medication so I don't do something stupid at work...like completely fail to notice some asshole at the scene holding a shotgun before rushing in to Tx my patient or fail to notice that part of my knee touching some unlucky fucker's hypoperfused wrist before hitting the big, green button on the AED. You know, careless shit we ADD fakers do to scam the system out of a free pass to get high. BRING ON THOSE 900 JOULES, BABY. MAMMA GON' GIT A NEW BOTTLE OF RITALIN!
Quote from: navkat on May 03, 2012, 03:45:07 PM
That's okay, I know how to turn my washing machine into a centrifuge if need be.
This is going in newsfeed.
Quote from: Reverend What's-His-Name? on May 03, 2012, 03:04:15 AM
Eh, I've worked with plenty of good joes from the DEA. None of them would have left someone like that.
The DEA doesn't hire "good joes".
They don't fit in with the company philosophy.
The fact that you think those are "good people" may, however, reveal something about you.
Also, people who seem like good folks can seem like completely different people if you're on the other end of their shitty stick.
"He seemed like such a nice guy, never bothered anyone..." <-- Basically every character witness ever.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on May 03, 2012, 06:54:53 PM
Quote from: Reverend What's-His-Name? on May 03, 2012, 03:04:15 AM
Eh, I've worked with plenty of good joes from the DEA. None of them would have left someone like that.
The DEA doesn't hire "good joes".
They don't fit in with the company philosophy.
The fact that you think those are "good people" may, however, reveal something about you.
Yes, that I judge people on a case by case basis based upon my interactions with them.
Quote from: Reverend What's-His-Name? on May 03, 2012, 07:31:29 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on May 03, 2012, 06:54:53 PM
Quote from: Reverend What's-His-Name? on May 03, 2012, 03:04:15 AM
Eh, I've worked with plenty of good joes from the DEA. None of them would have left someone like that.
The DEA doesn't hire "good joes".
They don't fit in with the company philosophy.
The fact that you think those are "good people" may, however, reveal something about you.
Yes, that I judge people on a case by case basis based upon my interactions with them.
In my experience, all federal cops with the possible exception of the US Marshalls are pretty much indistinguishable from the people you would have found working for Heinrich Himmler.
Quote from: Cainad on May 03, 2012, 07:20:49 PM
Also, people who seem like good folks can seem like completely different people if you're on the other end of their shitty stick.
"He seemed like such a nice guy, never bothered anyone..." <-- Basically every character witness ever.
But you can say that about anybody. I could say that about any of you. You all could be the nice people I think you are or a bunch of shit-necks. However, I'm choosing to make whatever judgement I make based upon what I know of you.
There are certainly crap-weasels in the DEA, hell, there are probably a lot of them. All I'm saying is my experience tells me they aren't all crap-weasels.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 03, 2012, 07:33:14 PM
Quote from: Reverend What's-His-Name? on May 03, 2012, 07:31:29 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on May 03, 2012, 06:54:53 PM
Quote from: Reverend What's-His-Name? on May 03, 2012, 03:04:15 AM
Eh, I've worked with plenty of good joes from the DEA. None of them would have left someone like that.
The DEA doesn't hire "good joes".
They don't fit in with the company philosophy.
The fact that you think those are "good people" may, however, reveal something about you.
Yes, that I judge people on a case by case basis based upon my interactions with them.
In my experience, all federal cops with the possible exception of the US Marshalls are pretty much indistinguishable from the people you would have found working for Heinrich Himmler.
Okay then. I personally think that is a very broad brush.
Quote from: Reverend What's-His-Name? on May 03, 2012, 07:36:04 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 03, 2012, 07:33:14 PM
Quote from: Reverend What's-His-Name? on May 03, 2012, 07:31:29 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on May 03, 2012, 06:54:53 PM
Quote from: Reverend What's-His-Name? on May 03, 2012, 03:04:15 AM
Eh, I've worked with plenty of good joes from the DEA. None of them would have left someone like that.
The DEA doesn't hire "good joes".
They don't fit in with the company philosophy.
The fact that you think those are "good people" may, however, reveal something about you.
Yes, that I judge people on a case by case basis based upon my interactions with them.
In my experience, all federal cops with the possible exception of the US Marshalls are pretty much indistinguishable from the people you would have found working for Heinrich Himmler.
Okay then. I personally think that is a very broad brush.
Hence the "in my experience". I've dealt with a fairly large number of INS agents, for example, and they are 100% jackbooted scum. The few dealings I've had with the DEA and the one time I interacted with the FBI were almost as bad.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 03, 2012, 07:33:14 PM
In my experience, all federal cops with the possible exception of the US Marshalls are pretty much indistinguishable from the people you would have found working for Heinrich Himmler.
I was just about to reply to what Cainad said with a quote about the SS, actually.
I actually cannot find it now, which is very annoying, but basically it was about how the SS in a certain town were mingling with people there, happy, laughing, giving sweets to the children, joking around....and then the next they were given the order to attack. And they did. They weren't "monsters", in the sense of being off-the-wall psychopaths who enjoyed inflicting pain, but they were given a legitimate order, and they carried it out. And that just happened to mean killing civilians they had been getting along with quite happily 24 hours earlier.
It's not an exact parallel, but I suspect there is a strong culture of "fuck him, he's a drug addict, he's getting what he deserves" among DEA agents. The guy had been picked up at a drug bust, and had admitted to being there to buy drugs. And that was all they needed. He didn't matter enough to warrant looking after in any great detail, or even remembering about. "Just another druggie."
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 03, 2012, 05:05:21 PM
Quote from: navkat on May 03, 2012, 03:45:07 PM
That's okay, I know how to turn my washing machine into a centrifuge if need be.
This is going in newsfeed.
:)
Quote from: Cainad on May 03, 2012, 07:20:49 PM
Also, people who seem like good folks can seem like completely different people if you're on the other end of their shitty stick.
"He seemed like such a nice guy, never bothered anyone..." <-- Basically every character witness ever.
" an went to church every sunday."
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 03, 2012, 07:33:14 PM
Quote from: Reverend What's-His-Name? on May 03, 2012, 07:31:29 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on May 03, 2012, 06:54:53 PM
Quote from: Reverend What's-His-Name? on May 03, 2012, 03:04:15 AM
Eh, I've worked with plenty of good joes from the DEA. None of them would have left someone like that.
The DEA doesn't hire "good joes".
They don't fit in with the company philosophy.
The fact that you think those are "good people" may, however, reveal something about you.
Yes, that I judge people on a case by case basis based upon my interactions with them.
In my experience, all federal cops with the possible exception of the US Marshalls are pretty much indistinguishable from the people you would have found working for Heinrich Himmler.
DIFW guys are OK. I mean, they're major hardcases mostly, but they tend to treat people like people.
Quote from: Reverend What's-His-Name? on May 03, 2012, 07:35:17 PM
Quote from: Cainad on May 03, 2012, 07:20:49 PM
Also, people who seem like good folks can seem like completely different people if you're on the other end of their shitty stick.
"He seemed like such a nice guy, never bothered anyone..." <-- Basically every character witness ever.
But you can say that about anybody. I could say that about any of you. You all could be the nice people I think you are or a bunch of shit-necks.
I kind of like to believe that the way PD tends to vocally call people on the merest hint of shit-neckery, that we generally do a fairly good job of sorting out such kinds of filth. (we do agree that the people that let this happen are filth and in a better system should receive justice, right? --
especially if they're not representative of the whole)
In a professional situation there's job security to worry about and people tend to avoid confrontation and difficult questions.
How about next time you meet a DEA person you ask them how they feel about this story. Be sure to include a few critical questions about how this could even have happened, what went wrong, why there's people in the DEA that can let this happen, and not simply accept a "that was terrible, and should never have happened" and leave it at that.
RWHN, you're hardly meeting them in the kind of social context where their ability to be complete shits would exactly be acceptable. I mean, I doubt meetings with state and NGO officials would work out well if they went around being monstrous dicks to people.
If you had met them first when they were nabbing you at a drug bust, you might have seen a whole different side to them. And unless you're in that situation, no, you can't know what they're truly capable of.
One of the downsides of having studied the reality of how power and authority affects people is that you have to live with the idea that a good number of people around you would kill you if someone with a uniform and a weapon told them to. A two thirds majority (http://neuron4.psych.ubc.ca/~schaller/Psyc591Readings/Blass1999.pdf), most likely. What makes DEA agents any better than the people who took part in the Stanford Prison Experiment, or the Milgram experiment? Absolutely nothing, that's what.
Well, no I'm not out there with them busting up cartels or anything like that. But I actually am often enough in situations, socially, where there is candid and, off the record conversations. And in my work, I'm pretty good at picking out the characters who are in this work for the right reasons and those who are in it for powered trips, egos, political gain, etc. So I have to disagree with that.
And again, my main point here isn't to contest there are issues in the DEA. Certainly, this incident calls for thorough investigations and repercussions. My only point is I think it is unfair to paint all DEA agents as evil, callous shitnecks. Not without some pervasive and consistent proof that proves it is everyone.
61-66% of all people will electrocute someone to death if ordered to do so.
2/3rds of all people are callous, evil shitnecks.
Okay, well if we're going to go down the people=shit road, I would refer back to an earlier post on the prior page.
Quote from: Reverend What's-His-Name? on May 03, 2012, 07:35:17 PM
But you can say that about anybody. I could say that about any of you. You all could be the nice people I think you are or a bunch of shit-necks. However, I'm choosing to make whatever judgement I make based upon what I know of you.
There are certainly crap-weasels in the DEA, hell, there are probably a lot of them. All I'm saying is my experience tells me they aren't all crap-weasels.
Quote from: Cain on May 04, 2012, 08:01:03 AM
61-66% of all people will electrocute someone to death if ordered to do so.
2/3rds of all people are callous, evil shitnecks.
I don't see the Milgram effect as illustrating callous/evilness, it's more about dumb conditioning and deferment of critical thought when there's a "boss" present.
Callous and evil in the OP sense is more likely an enculturation effect, reinforced by Milgram principles.
The DEA are basically just dumb fucking monkeys behaving the same way as all the other dumb monkeys in the world behave. Difference being that a lot of people seem to assume that "authorities" should be above this kind of thing. No idea why anyone would think this but it's pretty obvious that most of them do.
Most people tend to not find themselves in situations where this effect actually causes other people serious harm.
But if you professional line of work involves finding yourself in such situations regularly ... what does that say about apologetics for the 66%?
Quote from: Cain on May 04, 2012, 08:01:03 AM
61-66% of all people will electrocute someone to death if ordered to do so.
2/3rds of all people are callous, evil shitnecks.
This is something I don't understand. There's just nothing reasonable embedded in the human code or in any animal survival instinct that makes this comprehensible to me. Why? Why kill that which you do not intend to eat without threat to life, liberty or access to resources simply in compliance with a random person?
The worst part of the experiment were the audible screams of agony. How could they carry on in light of that?
Primates are hardwired for hierarchy.
Humans are wired to believe that someone wearing an OFFICIAL UNIFORM must be above them in the hierarchy.
It's interesting that other studies have shown that if other people rebel against an unjust authority, there is a tipping point at which most participants will join the rebellion. This implies that it is an innate and unconscious fear of reprisal, rather than sadism, that motivates them to obey an order to do harm to other people.
Okay, fear of reprisal, I can grok. That's self-preservation.
Quote from: navkat on May 05, 2012, 06:12:14 PM
Okay, fear of reprisal, I can grok. That's self-preservation.
:crankey:
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on May 05, 2012, 06:28:53 PM
Quote from: navkat on May 05, 2012, 06:12:14 PM
Okay, fear of reprisal, I can grok. That's self-preservation.
:crankey:
Hey! grok is a perfectly acceptable word! with a narrow definition of fully understanding. Just because you don't know what it feels like to grok does not in any way make it neccesary to hate grok grokkers.
Heinlein was as good a source of new words as any:
QuoteAt least once every human being should have to run for his life, to teach him that milk does not come from the supermarket, that safety does not come from policemen, and that news is not something that happens to other people.
Can a man who says that be unworthy of doing with one word what Shakespeare did with hundreds of words?
Heinlein was utter shit, and so is his stupid made-up word.
42
ahhh suc sse
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on May 06, 2012, 08:41:31 PM
Heinlein was utter shit, and so is his stupid made-up word.
This. And the story the word came from was lousy, even for him.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 06, 2012, 09:09:15 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on May 06, 2012, 08:41:31 PM
Heinlein was utter shit, and so is his stupid made-up word.
This. And the story the word came from was lousy, even for him.
I liked it, but I was six at the time and I think that's a good excuse.
The problem with comparing Heinlein to Shakespeare is that Shakespeare never wrote a story about having sex with your opposite gender clones.
Quote from: Cain on May 06, 2012, 10:36:14 PM
The problem with comparing Heinlein to Shakespeare is that Shakespeare never wrote a story about having sex with your opposite gender clones.
Then why the hell is he so influential? :argh!:
Quote from: Cain on May 06, 2012, 10:36:14 PM
The problem with comparing Heinlein to Shakespeare is that Shakespeare never wrote a story about having sex with your opposite gender clones.
For some reason, I find the idea of opposite-sex clones extremely irritating.
Quote from: Phox, Mistress of Many Names on May 06, 2012, 10:37:28 PM
Quote from: Cain on May 06, 2012, 10:36:14 PM
The problem with comparing Heinlein to Shakespeare is that Shakespeare never wrote a story about having sex with your opposite gender clones.
Then why the hell is he so influential? :argh!:
I'm not sure. You'd think the clones would negate anything else.
Quote from: Nigel on May 06, 2012, 10:38:29 PM
Quote from: Cain on May 06, 2012, 10:36:14 PM
The problem with comparing Heinlein to Shakespeare is that Shakespeare never wrote a story about having sex with your opposite gender clones.
For some reason, I find the idea of opposite-sex clones extremely irritating.
Not as irritating as the actuality, I'm sure.
I mean, imagine how awkward the whole situation would be....
Quote from: Cain on May 06, 2012, 10:40:03 PM
Quote from: Phox, Mistress of Many Names on May 06, 2012, 10:37:28 PM
Quote from: Cain on May 06, 2012, 10:36:14 PM
The problem with comparing Heinlein to Shakespeare is that Shakespeare never wrote a story about having sex with your opposite gender clones.
Then why the hell is he so influential? :argh!:
I'm not sure. You'd think the clones would negate anything else.
I know, right? Would that we were so lucky. :lulz:
Quote from: Nigel on May 06, 2012, 10:38:29 PM
Quote from: Cain on May 06, 2012, 10:36:14 PM
The problem with comparing Heinlein to Shakespeare is that Shakespeare never wrote a story about having sex with your opposite gender clones.
For some reason, I find the idea of opposite-sex clones extremely irritating.
Great. More Nigels.
NO NOT NIGELS, NIGELINAS! AAAAAAAAAAAARGH!
When I saw the title of this thread, I just went straight to the last page to see if it had gotten choppy, yet. I see it's already devolved into Heinlein v. Shakespeare and Clone Griping.
Oh PD, you're so predictable.
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on May 06, 2012, 11:55:39 PM
When I saw the title of this thread, I just went straight to the last page to see if it had gotten choppy, yet. I see it's already devolved into Heinlein v. Shakespeare and Clone Griping.
Oh PD, you're so predictable.
(http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/Smileys/default/roglol.gif)
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on May 06, 2012, 11:55:39 PM
When I saw the title of this thread, I just went straight to the last page to see if it had gotten choppy, yet. I see it's already devolved into Heinlein v. Shakespeare and Clone Griping.
Oh PD, you're so predictable.
Yeah,sorry, I've been too busy to properly participate in this thread. ;)
Quote from: Nigel on May 06, 2012, 10:38:29 PM
Quote from: Cain on May 06, 2012, 10:36:14 PM
The problem with comparing Heinlein to Shakespeare is that Shakespeare never wrote a story about having sex with your opposite gender clones.
For some reason, I find the idea of opposite-sex clones extremely irritating.
Now you made me curious, why?
Having sex with an opposite sex clone of myself doesn't really sit right with me either. First of, I can't really imagine what I'd look like if I'd grown up with XX chromosomes. And probably more importantly, she'd not be
me, she'd just share a load of my DNA. It'd be like having sex with an identical twin sister :x That's not right! No no, in such a case of meeting my clone, we'd be setting eachother up with our friends, or something, maybe. And regular family type bonding, except better because we'd both be really awesome. Actually, my actual brother is also really awesome, so kind of like that.
Quote from: Triple Zero on May 07, 2012, 12:50:27 AM
Quote from: Nigel on May 06, 2012, 10:38:29 PM
Quote from: Cain on May 06, 2012, 10:36:14 PM
The problem with comparing Heinlein to Shakespeare is that Shakespeare never wrote a story about having sex with your opposite gender clones.
For some reason, I find the idea of opposite-sex clones extremely irritating.
Now you made me curious, why?
Having sex with an opposite sex clone of myself doesn't really sit right with me either. First of, I can't really imagine what I'd look like if I'd grown up with XX chromosomes. And probably more importantly, she'd not be me, she'd just share a load of my DNA. It'd be like having sex with an identical twin sister :x That's not right! No no, in such a case of meeting my clone, we'd be setting eachother up with our friends, or something, maybe. And regular family type bonding, except better because we'd both be really awesome. Actually, my actual brother is also really awesome, so kind of like that.
Because clones are genetically identical to their donors, so they're the same sex.
Quote from: Nigel on May 07, 2012, 01:42:40 AM
Quote from: Triple Zero on May 07, 2012, 12:50:27 AM
Quote from: Nigel on May 06, 2012, 10:38:29 PM
Quote from: Cain on May 06, 2012, 10:36:14 PM
The problem with comparing Heinlein to Shakespeare is that Shakespeare never wrote a story about having sex with your opposite gender clones.
For some reason, I find the idea of opposite-sex clones extremely irritating.
Now you made me curious, why?
Having sex with an opposite sex clone of myself doesn't really sit right with me either. First of, I can't really imagine what I'd look like if I'd grown up with XX chromosomes. And probably more importantly, she'd not be me, she'd just share a load of my DNA. It'd be like having sex with an identical twin sister :x That's not right! No no, in such a case of meeting my clone, we'd be setting eachother up with our friends, or something, maybe. And regular family type bonding, except better because we'd both be really awesome. Actually, my actual brother is also really awesome, so kind of like that.
Because clones are genetically identical to their donors, so they're the same sex.
It's just as well. I'd just spend all of my time trying to feel me up.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 07, 2012, 01:44:27 AM
Quote from: Nigel on May 07, 2012, 01:42:40 AM
Quote from: Triple Zero on May 07, 2012, 12:50:27 AM
Quote from: Nigel on May 06, 2012, 10:38:29 PM
Quote from: Cain on May 06, 2012, 10:36:14 PM
The problem with comparing Heinlein to Shakespeare is that Shakespeare never wrote a story about having sex with your opposite gender clones.
For some reason, I find the idea of opposite-sex clones extremely irritating.
Now you made me curious, why?
Having sex with an opposite sex clone of myself doesn't really sit right with me either. First of, I can't really imagine what I'd look like if I'd grown up with XX chromosomes. And probably more importantly, she'd not be me, she'd just share a load of my DNA. It'd be like having sex with an identical twin sister :x That's not right! No no, in such a case of meeting my clone, we'd be setting eachother up with our friends, or something, maybe. And regular family type bonding, except better because we'd both be really awesome. Actually, my actual brother is also really awesome, so kind of like that.
Because clones are genetically identical to their donors, so they're the same sex.
It's just as well. I'd just spend all of my time trying to feel me up.
I know, right?
Quote from: Triple Zero on May 07, 2012, 12:50:27 AM
Quote from: Nigel on May 06, 2012, 10:38:29 PM
Quote from: Cain on May 06, 2012, 10:36:14 PM
The problem with comparing Heinlein to Shakespeare is that Shakespeare never wrote a story about having sex with your opposite gender clones.
For some reason, I find the idea of opposite-sex clones extremely irritating.
Now you made me curious, why?
Having sex with an opposite sex clone of myself doesn't really sit right with me either. First of, I can't really imagine what I'd look like if I'd grown up with XX chromosomes. And probably more importantly, she'd not be me, she'd just share a load of my DNA. It'd be like having sex with an identical twin sister :x That's not right! No no, in such a case of meeting my clone, we'd be setting eachother up with our friends, or something, maybe. And regular family type bonding, except better because we'd both be really awesome. Actually, my actual brother is also really awesome, so kind of like that.
:lulz:
Quote from: Nigel on May 07, 2012, 01:42:40 AM
Because clones are genetically identical to their donors, so they're the same sex.
D'oh. Good point :)
Now my biology lessons are failing me, but to clone a woman as a man, could you not simply (given technology) cut off one leg of the XX chromosomes to get an XY?
Or does that not work?
And can you do the reverse by copying the leg of the Y to make a man's XY into XX? (I assume if the first is not possible this one won't be either)
Something in me says these might be really dumb questions, but I really can't remember how that shit worked again. Ask me something about computer programming! ;-)
Are you any good with iPad's? I'm still trying to figure out how to make parts of mine work the way I want them to. Apparently cursing at them doesn't help. :argh!:
Quote from: Triple Zero on May 07, 2012, 05:28:12 PM
Now my biology lessons are failing me, but to clone a woman as a man, could you not simply (given technology) cut off one leg of the XX chromosomes to get an XY?
Or does that not work?
This made me laugh.
Imagine X as being a car and Y as being a bike.
duct-taping extra parts to a bike does not make a car.
Quote from: Triple Zero on May 07, 2012, 05:28:12 PM
And can you do the reverse by copying the leg of the Y to make a man's XY into XX? (I assume if the first is not possible this one won't be either)
You could just copy a man's X twice and throw the Y away, that should work.
Hey cool, that's a first: A form of reproduction available to men but not women :) They may be able to grow babies in them, but we can clone ourselves into a different sex :D (theoretically) (and you'd still need a womb to grow the clone-baby in, DAMNIT)
Quote from: Triple Zero on May 07, 2012, 05:28:12 PM
Quote from: Nigel on May 07, 2012, 01:42:40 AM
Because clones are genetically identical to their donors, so they're the same sex.
D'oh. Good point :)
Now my biology lessons are failing me, but to clone a woman as a man, could you not simply (given technology) cut off one leg of the XX chromosomes to get an XY?
Or does that not work?
And can you do the reverse by copying the leg of the Y to make a man's XY into XX? (I assume if the first is not possible this one won't be either)
Something in me says these might be really dumb questions, but I really can't remember how that shit worked again. Ask me something about computer programming! ;-)
It's possible to manipulate genes so that the clone-based offspring is a different sex, but then it ceases to be a clone and becomes an asexually-reproduced offspring.
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on May 19, 2012, 03:48:13 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on May 07, 2012, 05:28:12 PM
Quote from: Nigel on May 07, 2012, 01:42:40 AM
Because clones are genetically identical to their donors, so they're the same sex.
D'oh. Good point :)
Now my biology lessons are failing me, but to clone a woman as a man, could you not simply (given technology) cut off one leg of the XX chromosomes to get an XY?
Or does that not work?
And can you do the reverse by copying the leg of the Y to make a man's XY into XX? (I assume if the first is not possible this one won't be either)
Something in me says these might be really dumb questions, but I really can't remember how that shit worked again. Ask me something about computer programming! ;-)
It's possible to manipulate genes so that the clone-based offspring is a different sex, but then it ceases to be a clone and becomes an asexually-reproduced offspring.
Psssht, just give the marketing department a good budget and that distinction becomes irrelevant.
Quote from: :regret: on May 07, 2012, 09:44:16 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on May 07, 2012, 05:28:12 PM
Now my biology lessons are failing me, but to clone a woman as a man, could you not simply (given technology) cut off one leg of the XX chromosomes to get an XY?
Or does that not work?
This made me laugh.
Imagine X as being a car and Y as being a bike.
duct-taping extra parts to a bike does not make a car.
Depends on the parts, and how much duct tape you use.
You're not REALLY a hipster unless your tall bike has an Edsel's engine duct taped behind the seat. Obviously, you have to put a milk crate on top of the engine, though.
Link in the OP is disappeareded.
AMERICA!
169% x 2
http://wayback.archive.org/web/*/http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/calif-student-who-drug-agents-accidentally-left-in-cell-for-5-days-says-he-drank-own-urine/2012/05/*
The latter may be due to the WaPo disallowing their pages to be archived by external sources, I would hazard to guess. But yeah... funny how that happens, yeah? :lulz:
Quote from: Phox, Mistress of Many Names on May 23, 2012, 01:38:57 AM
The latter may be due to the WaPo disallowing their pages to be archived by external sources, I would hazard to guess. But yeah... funny how that happens, yeah? :lulz:
We need some kind of gif emote of a guy trying to stuff a cat back in a bag.