[sceptic]

edit

[sceptic]

fred, on Nov 17 2007, 02:48 PM, said:

1eyedjack, on Nov 17 2007, 12:07 PM, said:

sceptic, on Nov 17 2007, 08:55 AM, said:

Quote

Ever screwed your girl friend even though she was 17 and you were 18?

From some of the top class magazines I have read about parts of America, should this question not be

Ever screwed your girlfriend even though she was your sister

ROARRING!!!!
That has to be one of the funniest posts in these forums that I have read for many months. Thanks, Wayne

(picking self up off floor, wiping away the tears)

Apparently not everyone shares your opinion about the humor here.

I received an e-mail this morning from an obviously upset person who has a long history of being a volunteer TD on BBO, a long history of helping us to improve the software, and a long history of contributing to Forums. As far as I can tell, this person is also very normal. He or she is not one of those overly-sensitive politically correct types.

This person thought that the statement in question was so over the top that he or she has lost all interest in participating in Forums.

I don't think it would have taken much thought or imagination for the poster who made this comment to realize that this sort of thing might happen. Whether or not you think such a reaction is reasonable or the remark in question was funny, I don't think that refraining from making jokes on Forums concerning subjects like incest is asking a lot.

Sorry if you think this request violates your inalienable right of free speech. Despite this being "The Water Cooler", speech is not completely free here. This is not "The Men's Room".

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

point taken, apologys to all offended by my post

[TimG]

kenrexford, on Nov 17 2007, 08:25 AM, said:

First, it would be rather amazing to believe that a ban, in an international event like this, where people are representing fellow countrymen, against making political statements would be one that would be ill-advised.

Wasn't there flag waving and anthem singing done by any number of participants? How are these not "political statements"?

[uday]

http://forums.bridge...showtopic=22345

[blackshoe]

Quote

as long as a person is willing to pay the consequence, do what you want

Law 72B2 said:

A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if there is a prescribed penalty he is willing to pay.

[luke warm]

blackshoe, on Nov 17 2007, 02:54 PM, said:

Quote

as long as a person is willing to pay the consequence, do what you want

Law 72B2 said:

A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if there is a prescribed penalty he is willing to pay.

i don't understand your point... are you saying that a person who knowingly breaks a rule, fully prepared to face the consequences, now can't because yet another rule doesn't permit it?

[kenrexford]

jdonn, on Nov 17 2007, 10:08 AM, said:

kenrexford, on Nov 17 2007, 08:25 AM, said:

Short form of the above: 55 is not a law.

Really! I'm not saying I don't believe you but that is extremely surprising to me. Can you prove it?

Yes.

http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0...7-ohio-3763.pdf

The Ohio Supreme Court addressed in 2007 some of the more opbscure aspects of this, like whether the elements alleged on the citation would suffice under certain circumstances. But, the underlying discussion is good.

Now, I cannot vouch for any other State, as I have not done the research for all 50 states. However, I could, for a nominal fee (just kidding), check to see for your State, if you want.

---

Nope -- not bunk.

[kenrexford]

jonottawa, on Nov 17 2007, 10:50 AM, said:

kenrexford, on Nov 17 2007, 01:25 PM, said:

Ever gotten lazy on your tax returns?

The IRA may be reading all of my emails and forum posts after the Patriot Act.  So...

Why would the IRA care if you cheated on your tax returns or base its conduct on the Patriot Act?

Those guys are everywhere!

What, you think that there is no obvious coincidence between the "IRS" and the "IRA," considering all of the Irish in the United States? Boy are you naive!

[blackshoe]

luke warm, on Nov 17 2007, 05:08 PM, said:

i don't understand your point... are you saying that a person who knowingly breaks a rule, fully prepared to face the consequences, now can't because yet another rule doesn't permit it?

Nope. I'm saying one shouldn't break laws without a damn good reason. And that there iis no reason good enough to justify breaking the rules of a game, I suppose.

One of the most popular shows on television when I was a kid was "Davy Crockett". Fess Parker played Davy. He was always saying

Quote

Be sure you're right. Then go ahead.

I've always considered that good advice.

[mrdct]

TimG, on Nov 17 2007, 12:02 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Nov 17 2007, 08:25 AM, said:

First, it would be rather amazing to believe that a ban, in an international event like this, where people are representing fellow countrymen, against making political statements would be one that would be ill-advised.

Wasn't there flag waving and anthem singing done by any number of participants? How are these not "political statements"?

I'd say flag waving and anthem singing are patiotic statements not political statements.

[han]

hrothgar, on Nov 17 2007, 10:57 AM, said:

Hannie, on Nov 17 2007, 08:13 AM, said:

hrothgar, on Nov 16 2007, 10:17 PM, said:

Ever had more than a couple beers and driven home?

Richard, I'm very disappointed in you if you think laws against drunk driving are poorly conceived.

Hi Han

I was picking examples of laws that I thought that many people have knowingly violated. I agree that people shouldn't drive around drunk, people should pay their taxes, recycling laws are a good idea.

At the same time, there have been occasions where I have suspected that I was over .08%, yet I still chose to drive. I have not always been fastidious regarding my tax returns, I have occasionally failed to separate paper and plastics.

Yes, there are also laws that I knowingly break. But you didn't have "did you ever stab someone in the back with a knife" on your list. To me, "not always recycling" should not be on the same list as "driving after drinking more than 3 beers".

[jonottawa]

kenrexford, on Nov 17 2007, 11:54 PM, said:

jdonn, on Nov 17 2007, 10:08 AM, said:

kenrexford, on Nov 17 2007, 08:25 AM, said:

Short form of the above: 55 is not a law.

Really! I'm not saying I don't believe you but that is extremely surprising to me. Can you prove it?

Yes.

http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0...7-ohio-3763.pdf

The Ohio Supreme Court addressed in 2007 some of the more opbscure aspects of this, like whether the elements alleged on the citation would suffice under certain circumstances. But, the underlying discussion is good.

Now, I cannot vouch for any other State, as I have not done the research for all 50 states. However, I could, for a nominal fee (just kidding), check to see for your State, if you want.

---

Nope -- not bunk.

How about citing a case where the speeder actually was acquitted /charges dismissed?

I think you're way better off hoping that the officer doesn't show up for the court appearance than that you're going to be able to use this defense successfully.

[Gerben42]

My dad got a fine for speeding when he drove 60 km/h inside of a city (50 km/h allowed) at 2 am with no one in sight other than the camera... I think this was more than just unfair, I would rate this as criminal.

[1eyedjack]

It is probably a bit of a simplification, and may vary geographically, but in my neck of the woods if you don't spot the camera before it spots you then you probably deserve to be snapped, as you are likely not paying attention - the cameras are pretty obvious where I come from.

Having said that they are beginning to introduce the ones that come in pairs and measure the time you take to cover the distance between them, and they are going to be a b*gger.

[kenrexford]

jonottawa, on Nov 18 2007, 02:04 AM, said:

kenrexford, on Nov 17 2007, 11:54 PM, said:

jdonn, on Nov 17 2007, 10:08 AM, said:

kenrexford, on Nov 17 2007, 08:25 AM, said:

Short form of the above: 55 is not a law.

Really! I'm not saying I don't believe you but that is extremely surprising to me. Can you prove it?

Yes.

http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0...7-ohio-3763.pdf

The Ohio Supreme Court addressed in 2007 some of the more opbscure aspects of this, like whether the elements alleged on the citation would suffice under certain circumstances. But, the underlying discussion is good.

Now, I cannot vouch for any other State, as I have not done the research for all 50 states. However, I could, for a nominal fee (just kidding), check to see for your State, if you want.

---

Nope -- not bunk.

How about citing a case where the speeder actually was acquitted /charges dismissed?

I think you're way better off hoping that the officer doesn't show up for the court appearance than that you're going to be able to use this defense successfully.

The reporting of decisions follows appeals, very rarely trial-level. So, any acquittal would likely not be reported.

Further, attorneys rarely handle minor misdemeanor tickets; the cost is prohibitive.

So, you will be unlikely to find a specific instance either way.

However, I have seen that, in municipal court, a creative argument can win the day, including this argument. It has been rare that I have seen it, because traffic court usually occurs on a day that I am not present, with a magistrate rather than a judge.

However, judges and magistrates in muni court often like a respectfully-offered unique argument, to break up the monotony.

As a wild example, I have personally won a case where a man was charged with a a license plate violation for having a fake Ohio license plate. As it turned out, he was a whack-job who put a home-made plate that said that he, as ambassador to the moorish king of Morocco in exile, authorized himself to drive on diplomatic plates (he was serious, in his mind). I won because they were not fake Ohio plates. Anyone can offer their authorization for someone to drive the vehicle. It might not be effective, but the ticket did not charge "no Ohio plates," it charged "fake Ohio plates."

I also won a loud noise in a motor vehicle by showing the judge that my client had a disco ball hanging from his rear-view mirror. I argued that this made his car a mobile night club. The judge looked at the picture of the disco ball, agreed that in fact there was a disco ball hanging there, and then tossed the case. Of course, the judge thought that this was a hysterically funny defense and had to go along, having a good sense of humor and all.

The point is to try it. What never works is angry accusations against the officer. Just about anything else might, though, especially if it either makes the judge laugh or involves lots of preparation of pictures, charts, whatever.

[bid_em_up]

kenrexford, on Nov 18 2007, 10:24 AM, said:

I also won a loud noise in a motor vehicle by showing the judge that my client had a disco ball hanging from his rear-view mirror. I argued that this made his car a mobile night club. The judge looked at the picture of the disco ball, agreed that in fact there was a disco ball hanging there, and then tossed the case. Of course, the judge thought that this was a hysterically funny defense and had to go along, having a good sense of humor and all.

Of course, with my luck, the judge would then demand to see my "Amplified Noise Permit", along with my "Occupancy Permit", along with my "Fire Inspection" permit, etc. etc. etc. and it would have been cheaper to just pay the noise fine to begin with.

[pclayton]

Gerben42, on Nov 18 2007, 03:24 AM, said:

My dad got a fine for speeding when he drove 60 km/h inside of a city (50 km/h allowed) at 2 am with no one in sight other than the camera... I think this was more than just unfair, I would rate this as criminal.

Cameras have become very commonplace in Southern California. The camera company gets a cut of the revenue the City receives. I've been caught twice .

There's some activist judges that have thrown out the charges based on the concept that a City / County cannot contract with the company that installs the cameras on a 'variable' rate basis.