When you say LOL, are you really laughing out loud? Or just snickering? A guffaw, or just a chortle?

Whey you say LMFAO, does that mean you are laughing your...well, never mind.

Haha, I'm so bad about those. If I'm at home, I'm usually laughing out loud, literally. At work, it's more often than not simply snickering

When you start a topic with a rhetorical question, do you really expect a response?

Slow day RMK?

Shore Thing: You are a ND person. Why are the faithful beating me up at Old St. Pat's because I don't like Charlie Weis? Is it always ND right or wrong?

I'm surprised to hear that. I can't find any ND fan who like Charlie. I've supported him longer than most (probably the NJ connection) but I too am ready for him to move on. I believe the team has a lot of talent and Charlie is just not coaching them well. I don't demonize him like many do, though. He has a wonderful charity for special needs kids like his daughter and does a lot of good.
What's the name of the Cincinnati Bearcats coach?

Can't say I disagree.

Has anyone noticed how the online Daily Herald is completely over the top with juvenile sex issues? Soliciting, possession of child porn, etc. I don't think three days go by without headlines and pictures of some pervert.

That's journalism, RMK....kinda like movies. They pick a genre and run with it until something more "shocking" comes along.

Why did we pay for this prosecution?

quote:

Originally posted by RMK:
Why did we pay for this prosecution?

Oh my goodness!

This is one of those situations really troubles me. If the house had burned down, the child died and the mom had survived would you feel the same?
Sort of reminds me of the penalty for a DUI being based not upon the illegal conduct of driving while impaired, but based upon whether you hurt or kill anyone in the process. Why, since the impaired driver has little or no control over where his car eventually ends up, should the penalties vary based upon the almost entirely random results of the automobiles path?

The child had to testify. In his mother's trial. He testified that he shut off the oven. There was no danger. Just a point to prove. By someone.

In situations like these you wonder if the identity of the accused should be held in confidence until there is a conviction.

Exactly, RMK. Whether or not the child was actually injured (or, God forbid, died) is irrelevant to the prosecution.

The woman has cancer and was taking medications. She made sure the oven was off. If her 10 year old son was not responsible enough to be "supervised" by a resting adult, we've got even more problems in our society than I initially thought.

Would it have been any different if she were ill and the boy couldn't wake her up? No. So why is it an issue?

quote:

Originally posted by Fish:
Sort of reminds me of the penalty for a DUI being based not upon the illegal conduct of driving while impaired, but based upon whether you hurt or kill anyone in the process. Why, since the impaired driver has little or no control over where his car eventually ends up, should the penalties vary based upon the almost entirely random results of the automobiles path?

Sounds like you'd LOVE this decision from the purple people eater!

Wow. Really?? I'm ALL FOR penalizing drunk drivers, but this case is ridiculous and it's incredibly sad that it's going to set a precedent for future cases.

Those darned Republicans and their booze....

Somebody's gotta fill in since Kennedy is gone.