• (cs) in reply to trtrwtf
    trtrwtf:
    Zune-Tran:
    I don't have that big of a hard-on for you!
    Yeah, that's what she said. And what he said. And it's what the cat said, too, and the corpse of the little old lady down the street, and your neighbor's parakeet as well.
    You're just mad because the replacement Zunesis is now clearly better at it than you.
  • your name (unregistered) in reply to Hortical
    Hortical:
    trtrwtf:
    Nagesh:
    Bulets never solve problems
    Yeah? Where would India be today if Gandhi had had your slacker attitude?
    They never would have got The Bomb, that's for sure.

    Watch out Ghandi might drop the A-Bomb.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aL6wlTDPiPU

  • anonymous_coward (unregistered) in reply to Steve The Cynic
    Steve The Cynic:
    Fred:
    Something like a hand perhaps? Most people have one of those...
    Actually, most people have *two* hands...

    Most people have more than the average number of hands.

  • (cs) in reply to PedanticCurmudgeon
    PedanticCurmudgeon:
    trtrwtf:
    Zune-Tran:
    I don't have that big of a hard-on for you!
    Yeah, that's what she said. And what he said. And it's what the cat said, too, and the corpse of the little old lady down the street, and your neighbor's parakeet as well.
    You're just mad because the replacement Zunesis is now clearly better at it than you.

    I think you're confused, PC. Zunesis is not me, and I am not Zunesis. I don't think he's one of the regular posters, actually, I think he's just some moron.

  • The Zuneman Cumeth (unregistered) in reply to trtrwtf
    trtrwtf:
    PedanticCurmudgeon:
    You're just mad because the replacement Zunesis is now clearly better at it than you.
    I think you're confused, PC. Zunesis is not me, and I am not Zunesis. I don't think he's one of the regular posters, actually, I think he's just some moron.
    I find that your speculation is amusing. Under one name, you praise me comments and assume I'm a person of decent faculty. Under another name, you insult me and assume I'm a moron.

    psssst - I'm the same person as me.

    You demonstrate that you're simple and lack perspective.

  • _ (unregistered) in reply to The Zuneman Cumeth
    The Zuneman Cumeth:
    trtrwtf:
    I think you're confused, PC. Zunesis is not me, and I am not Zunesis. I don't think he's one of the regular posters, actually, I think he's just some moron.
    You demonstrate that you ... lack perspective.
    What do you think will happen when you keep pushing his face into the pillow?
  • (cs) in reply to The Zuneman Cumeth
    The Zuneman Cumeth:
    I find that your speculation is amusing. Under one name, you praise me comments and assume I'm a person of decent faculty. Under another name, you insult me and assume I'm a moron.

    No assumptions or speculation required. Read your posts. Moron, self-evident. Only the one name here, so you're also confused.

  • Adrian Veidt (unregistered) in reply to Anketam
    Anketam:
    Note "(comedian's name) killed" the comedian did not murder.
    Not exactly true - The Comedian did murder, but as he was working for the government, it was not prosecuted!
  • The Zuneman Cumeth (unregistered) in reply to trtrwtf
    trtrwtf:
    The Zuneman Cumeth:
    I find that your speculation is amusing. When I post under one name, you praise me comments and assume I'm a person of decent faculty. When I post under another name, you insult me and assume I'm a moron.
    No assumptions or speculation required. Read your posts. Moron, self-evident. Only the one name here, so you're also confused.
    Someone forgot to read his Plato, it seems.
  • (cs) in reply to boog
    boog:
    Lone Marauder:
    Seriously, the police are there to catch the criminal after a crime has happened, not to prevent it in the first place. Ask anyone that has had to deal with a stalker.
    That's why whenever the police arrive during the crime, they always leave and wait for the perpetrator to finish robbing/raping/murdering/etc. before they come back to arrest him. Surely they don't have any authority to help or rescue anyone.

    Authority, yes. Obligation, no.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

  • (cs) in reply to The Zuneman Cumeth
    The Zuneman Cumeth:
    trtrwtf:
    The Zuneman Cumeth:
    I find that your speculation is amusing. When I post under one name, you praise me comments and assume I'm a person of decent faculty. When I post under another name, you insult me and assume I'm a moron.
    No assumptions or speculation required. Read your posts. Moron, self-evident. Only the one name here, so you're also confused.
    Someone forgot to read his Plato, it seems.
    Please. You're not able to prove you post as people he praises any more than other people can prove they post as you.
  • (cs) in reply to shadowman
    shadowman:
    boog:
    Lone Marauder:
    Seriously, the police are there to catch the criminal after a crime has happened, not to prevent it in the first place. Ask anyone that has had to deal with a stalker.
    That's why whenever the police arrive during the crime, they always leave and wait for the perpetrator to finish robbing/raping/murdering/etc. before they come back to arrest him. Surely they don't have any authority to help or rescue anyone.

    Authority, yes. Obligation, no.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

    Did I say anything about obligation?
  • (cs) in reply to boog
    boog:
    Please. You're not able to prove you post as people he praises any more than other people can prove they post as you.

    On another note, I can't really think of anyone I've praised here. I can think of a few agreeable conversations, but no actual instances of praising come to mind. Maybe I'm missing one, but I'm not about to go searching the archives for it.

  • Neil (unregistered) in reply to trtrwtf
    trtrwtf:
    [confused] I thought the castle doctrine gives you the right to move your king into a more protected position, provided neither the king nor the involved rook have moved and none of the involved squares can be attacked by the enemy? [/confused]

    The king may not move out of, through, or into check, but the rook's squares may be attached by the enemy.

  • (cs) in reply to Neil
    Neil:
    trtrwtf:
    [confused] I thought the castle doctrine gives you the right to move your king into a more protected position, provided neither the king nor the involved rook have moved and none of the involved squares can be attacked by the enemy? [/confused]

    The king may not move out of, through, or into check, but the rook's squares may be attached by the enemy.

    But if the rook's squares are attacked by the enemy, that means the king has to move through or into check. Du-fucking-uh.

  • (cs) in reply to Matt Westwood
    Matt Westwood:
    Neil:
    trtrwtf:
    [confused] I thought the castle doctrine gives you the right to move your king into a more protected position, provided neither the king nor the involved rook have moved and none of the involved squares can be attacked by the enemy? [/confused]

    The king may not move out of, through, or into check, but the rook's squares may be attached by the enemy.

    But if the rook's squares are attacked by the enemy, that means the king has to move through or into check. Du-fucking-uh.

    Which rules are you playing by that the king moves onto the rook's square?

  • (cs) in reply to trtrwtf
    trtrwtf:
    Matt Westwood:
    Neil:
    trtrwtf:
    [confused] I thought the castle doctrine gives you the right to move your king into a more protected position, provided neither the king nor the involved rook have moved and none of the involved squares can be attacked by the enemy? [/confused]

    The king may not move out of, through, or into check, but the rook's squares may be attached by the enemy.

    But if the rook's squares are attacked by the enemy, that means the king has to move through or into check. Du-fucking-uh.

    Which rules are you playing by that the king moves onto the rook's square?

    Rook's squares? By which I take it to include the squares the rook passes over or to. Get a fucking grip.

  • (cs) in reply to Matt Westwood
    Matt Westwood:
    trtrwtf:
    Matt Westwood:
    Neil:
    trtrwtf:
    [confused] I thought the castle doctrine gives you the right to move your king into a more protected position, provided neither the king nor the involved rook have moved and none of the involved squares can be attacked by the enemy? [/confused]

    The king may not move out of, through, or into check, but the rook's squares may be attached by the enemy.

    But if the rook's squares are attacked by the enemy, that means the king has to move through or into check. Du-fucking-uh.

    Which rules are you playing by that the king moves onto the rook's square?

    Rook's squares? By which I take it to include the squares the rook passes over or to. Get a fucking grip.

    The squares that matter are the ones the king moves from, over, or to. The "rook's squares" don't matter at all. Get a grip yourself.

    (to quote some fucktard somewhere: you mad bro?)

  • Calli Arcale (unregistered) in reply to Grez
    Grez:
    Tonsil:
    I hope you don't own any good knives. If I ever caught you putting a Wusthof in the dishwasher or a drawer without a guard, I'd take it from you, sharpen it, then stab you with it.
    Huh? What kind of a crappy knife is harmed by a dishwasher?

    Depends on how well you want it to hold its edge. The problem isn't the heat or even the water (though unless it's a monolithic construction, where the tang is the handle rather than the handle being mounted around the tang, you will have to worry about water intrusion leading to corrosion of the tang if you immerse it in water for long periods or wash it in the dishwaser, and if the handle is wood, that's not the best substance to put through the dishwasher -- it'll survive, but it will be weakened). The problem is the dishwasher detergent, and it's the same reason you don't want to put your fine china or crystal through the dishwasher and why you don't use coarse scouring pads on them -- they'll get scratched, their finish may be damaged, any embellishments may be worn down or even off, and in the case of good knives, the edge will likely get blunted over time. This can be corrected by sharpening, but sharpening always removes material. In short, putting expensive knives through the dishwasher shortens their lifespan needlessly.

    Cheap knives I'll put through the dishwasher. Expensive knives I expect to still be using in 40 years, so I don't want to wear down their blades for no good reason. This is also why you probably shouldn't trust non-stick pans that say "dishwasher safe". Yeah, it'll be fine for a while, but if they say that, it's really because they want you to have to buy new nonstick pans in a few years.

  • Spoe (unregistered) in reply to Nick
    Nick:
    dohpaz42:
    In most U.S. states, it's only legal to kill an intruder if they were attacking you. So if somebody breaks in to your house, and you kill them, you "put a knife in their hand" so that you can claim self defense. It's an old running (almost inside) joke for us Americans.
    Here in Australia I believe you can only defend yourself with an equal or lesser weapon, so while your attacker is advancing on you with a knife, you have to determine if your baseball bat is a lesser weapon or not. "It has a longer reach, but it needs a larger area to swing and the knife can inflict greater damage up close, hmmm" Too late, you're dead.

    In most of the US use of weapons are categorized into "force" and "deadly force". If you are presented with a threat of deadly force, you are justified (in legal terms) in responding with deadly force. Doesn't matter if the actual sources of deadly force are different, so shooting someone trying to attack you with a knife is justified since it's responding to deadly force with deadly force.

    It's more complicated than that since other acts can play in to it, like provocation (e.g. if I shove you (force), you pull out a knife (deadly force), then I shoot you it's not going to be seen a justified in most places; you escalated to deadly force, but I started it and neither of us are justified in the use of deadly force). Additionally, the standard for justification is usually belief of a threat of serious bodily harm or death to yourself or, in some places, others (in my state, it's required the threat be real if it's to someone else, belief if it's to you).

  • Jay (unregistered)

    In American English, there's a technical term for people who don't keep a weapon in the house to defend themselves from criminals. We call them "victims".

  • MG (unregistered)

    Lunar Logic, by chance?

  • (cs) in reply to Matt Westwood
    Matt Westwood:
    trtrwtf:
    Matt Westwood:
    Neil:
    trtrwtf:
    [confused] I thought the castle doctrine gives you the right to move your king into a more protected position, provided neither the king nor the involved rook have moved and none of the involved squares can be attacked by the enemy? [/confused]

    The king may not move out of, through, or into check, but the rook's squares may be attached by the enemy.

    But if the rook's squares are attacked by the enemy, that means the king has to move through or into check. Du-fucking-uh.

    Which rules are you playing by that the king moves onto the rook's square?

    Rook's squares? By which I take it to include the squares the rook passes over or to. Get a fucking grip.

    a1, b1 and h1 (a8, b8, and h8 if black) may be under attack. Given that those are squares exclusively occupied or moved through by the rooks, I think calling the "rook's squares" is perfectly reasonable.

  • (cs) in reply to hatterson
    hatterson:
    Matt Westwood:
    trtrwtf:
    Matt Westwood:
    Neil:
    trtrwtf:
    [confused] I thought the castle doctrine gives you the right to move your king into a more protected position, provided neither the king nor the involved rook have moved and none of the involved squares can be attacked by the enemy? [/confused]

    The king may not move out of, through, or into check, but the rook's squares may be attached by the enemy.

    But if the rook's squares are attacked by the enemy, that means the king has to move through or into check. Du-fucking-uh.

    Which rules are you playing by that the king moves onto the rook's square?

    Rook's squares? By which I take it to include the squares the rook passes over or to. Get a fucking grip.

    a1, b1 and h1 (a8, b8, and h8 if black) may be under attack. Given that those are squares exclusively occupied or moved through by the rooks, I think calling the "rook's squares" is perfectly reasonable.

    Er, oh yeah. Soz.

  • Beta (unregistered) in reply to QJo
    QJo:
    I have some tiddlywinks in a box on the table by the front door... Those can be quite lethal too if you file the edges down. And you don't want to be nearby when I'm aggrieved and in possession of a full set of tiddlywinks.

    "Afternoon, sir, hoi'm Inspector Plodder, of The Yard, and we're lookin' into those three 'orrible murders you may 'ave 'eard tell about. All three done in with sharpened tiddlywinks if you please! So we're inquirin' in the neighbor'ood whether anyone's seen any strange characters 'anging about, or anything suspicious concernin' tiddlywinks, such as the ones you 'ave 'ere, or any... 'Ullo... It happears you're missing three tiddlywinks, sir. Can you haccount for 'em?"

  • (cs) in reply to Beta
    Beta:
    QJo:
    I have some tiddlywinks in a box on the table by the front door... Those can be quite lethal too if you file the edges down. And you don't want to be nearby when I'm aggrieved and in possession of a full set of tiddlywinks.

    "Afternoon, sir, hoi'm Inspector Plodder, of The Yard, and we're lookin' into those three 'orrible murders you may 'ave 'eard tell about. All three done in with sharpened tiddlywinks if you please! So we're inquirin' in the neighbor'ood whether anyone's seen any strange characters 'anging about, or anything suspicious concernin' tiddlywinks, such as the ones you 'ave 'ere, or any... 'Ullo... It happears you're missing three tiddlywinks, sir. Can you haccount for 'em?"

    PML, IFIJSM.

    "Must have gone behind the cushions in the sofa, officer. Care for a game? Delighted! You go first. Oh, bad luck. My go." Ping. "Oh dear, officer, I am so dreadfully sorry." (Gargh, glargh, gukh, glug, gurrrgh.) (Dials 999.) "Emergency services? Er, ambulance may be appropriate, an officer of the law seems to have had a nasty accident ..."

    Calls to mind the nasty spate of people dying from being drowned in their breakfast muesli. Police are looking for a cereal killer.

  • Jeremy Friesner (unregistered) in reply to Ave
    Ave:
    Why is everybody implying there was a knife in the story?

    If one should receive a visit from his boss, one should automatically assume he would be carrying a knife?

    Is it something too American and I don't get it?

    Yes. In the United States it is traditional for an employer to challenge ex-employees to a knife fight at dawn. Dunno why Steve chose evening for the fight in this case; that certainly isn't following the tradition at all.

  • Frank (unregistered) in reply to jc

    Say he came at me with an icicle?

  • Really> (unregistered) in reply to Rootbeer

    In before Rootbeer makes a damn fool of himself.

    Oh, noes! Too late...

  • damfak (unregistered)

    I don't get it. why did Stevie freak out?

  • opiumforthepeople (unregistered) in reply to ObiWayneKenobi
    ObiWayneKenobi:
    I would have shot him and claimed he came at me with a knife.
    You ever shot anyone before,then? If not, claims about shooting people do sound rather adolescent. If you have, then you probably have a personality disorder. Dangerous game, making up imaginary weapons & telling the cops about them, if you've also murdered someone.
  • Anne Thwacks (unregistered) in reply to Anketam

    Or you could claim the garden gnome was called Unity, and threw an exception at you!

    //confused? You cant handle confused!!!

  • Ed James (unregistered)

    This sounds eerily like a company I worked for about 12-14 years ago. The company (husband and wife / good cop bad cop) sold television programming via C-Band satellite dishes (think of the 8-12' diameter dishes). They simply sold the programming and made gobs of money at it.

    They had 100+ employees, mostly telemarketers, and 8-10 IT folks. The office was next to a business airport, and the couple lived next to another business airport about 20 miles away. They'd fly their plane to work, and then he'd bill the company for the use of the plane, and an hourly rate for the pilot (himself).

    They were so cheap that they insisted on 15 lb greenbar paper, which saved them about a buck or two per box, but would jam every other printout because the printers specified a minimum of 20 lb paper.

    In addition, because of the volume of programming they sold, they got large quantities of free merchandise from HBO, Showtime, etc. That merchandise (leather bomber jackets and other good quality items) sat in a locked cage in the warehouse where everyone could watch it rot, because they wouldn't dream of giving it to anyone.

    I saw the handwriting on the wall within the first week and only spent one month in that hellhole before I found something better.

    Good riddance!!

  • GeraldDew (unregistered)
    Comment held for moderation.

Leave a comment on “Aggressive Management”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

Log Out

« Return to Article