Limited Return

Graham · Postby **Graham** » 04 Nov 2007, 22:54

Yay!
Bet you never thought you'd see this again!

I edited this one...

Lavos · Postby **Lavos** » 04 Nov 2007, 23:01

I laffed at the old hippie emo.

Cake · Postby **Cake** » 04 Nov 2007, 23:13

Lord Chrusher · Postby **Lord Chrusher** » 04 Nov 2007, 23:13

The ads still have nothing to do with the videos or the site.

tak197 · Postby **tak197** » 04 Nov 2007, 23:18

It's a shame, cuz this may be the quickest and best WT ever. Oh well.

Lord Chrusher · Postby **Lord Chrusher** » 04 Nov 2007, 23:22

Morgan is should have been 'grabbed a cricket bad and taught some young whippersnappers how they did it in the days of yore'. Baseball bats are some what uncommon in England unlike cricket bats.

The Pious Flea · Postby **The Pious Flea** » 05 Nov 2007, 05:04

Then the guy who owned the house would be prosecuted for assault, and probably for risking people's lives.

Because the people destroying his house have the right to do so safely and without fear for their lives.

*cough*

Misty · Postby **Misty** » 05 Nov 2007, 07:40

Graham wrote:Bet you never thought you'd see this again!

You have no idea, I literally yelled out loud "Holy fuck, no way!!" when I saw that the sidebar was updated.

THANK YOU FOR NOT BEING A LAZY WANKER FOR ONCE, MORGAN.
...and thanks for editing, Graham.

Alja-Markir · Postby **Alja-Markir** » 05 Nov 2007, 09:40

The Pious Flea wrote:Because the people destroying his house have the right to do so safely and without fear for their lives.

Actually, they do have the right to not fear for their lives, regardless of the situation. It's called a basic human right, and such rights should only be revoked in times of severe need.

The vandals had absolutely no right to be on the property, or to destroy the property, but the fact that they did so does not give the property owner the right to take life. The owner acted perfectly in accordance to the law by demanding the vandals leave, and then he was assaulted. At that point he had the right to defend himself. Before that point, he had no right to hurt anyone.

Systems of law exist for a reason, and the homeowner followed the law to the letter. I would think less of him had he resorted to violence or force before such was legal or reasonably permissable. In that same vein, I have no pity for the vandals and would encourage the system to prosecute them to the full extent of the law.

~Alja~

Bob The Magic Camel · Postby **Bob The Magic Camel** » 05 Nov 2007, 10:40

We actually do have something equating to "Not being a retard on the internet education", obviously it isn't working very well.

Dr Frankenjam · Postby **Dr Frankenjam** » 05 Nov 2007, 10:54

I don't care where you live. If you post a video up on Youtube inviting people to a party at your house you deserve to have it trashed.

It's called natural selection.

korri · Postby **korri** » 05 Nov 2007, 10:55

yay! my day is now happy!

Cake · Postby **Cake** » 05 Nov 2007, 12:28

Alja-Markir wrote:Actually, they do have the right to not fear for their lives, regardless of the situation. It's called a basic human right, and such rights should only be revoked in times of severe need.

The vandals had absolutely no right to be on the property, or to destroy the property, but the fact that they did so does not give the property owner the right to take life. The owner acted perfectly in accordance to the law by demanding the vandals leave, and then he was assaulted. At that point he had the right to defend himself. Before that point, he had no right to hurt anyone.

Systems of law exist for a reason, and the homeowner followed the law to the letter. I would think less of him had he resorted to violence or force before such was legal or reasonably permissable. In that same vein, I have no pity for the vandals and would encourage the system to prosecute them to the full extent of the law.

Colorado law says quite the opposite.

Lord Chrusher · Postby **Lord Chrusher** » 05 Nov 2007, 12:51

Please can we not have the 'would I shoot the person breaking into my house and what gun I would use' discussion again please.

Alja-Markir · Postby **Alja-Markir** » 05 Nov 2007, 12:53

Yes, the whole "if you feel threatened" thing. Personally, I think that's a very poor way to define a law, but that's a whole other can of worms, and we're not going there today, I vote.

Point is, Colorado is neither relevant to the matter at hand, nor an example of Law at large. It is an exception, and that makes it a bit silly to bring up.

I stand by my previous statements.

~Alja~

Lord Chrusher · Postby **Lord Chrusher** » 05 Nov 2007, 12:58

Could we please leave it at 'those brits are stupid, lulz' and steer away from the morality and legality of self defence of property.

Cake · Postby **Cake** » 05 Nov 2007, 13:13

Alja's point made it seem as if that were how the law is and should be everywhere. I was careful in my wording to not bring up that discussion again. I was merely trying to provide an example of where the law puts the homeowner in control.

iceberg1972 · Postby **iceberg1972** » 05 Nov 2007, 13:34

I miss hearing the totally insane things going about this world... makes my life make a bit of sense...

HYRS · Postby **HYRS** » 05 Nov 2007, 13:45

1. Woo! Whatever thing updates!

2. Alja-Markir and Cake both need to either shut the fuck up or take this outside. At this point neither of you have basic human rights.

3. Woo! Whatever thing updates! I am happy.

Urdar · Postby **Urdar** » 05 Nov 2007, 14:26

Yay!

What would the World be without the USA and their System of jurisdiction?

It wold be quite more boring.

Yay!

Shenny_Lee · Postby **Shenny_Lee** » 05 Nov 2007, 14:33

"...presumably so it would be less gross when you went to the cow and said 'I got your toooongue"

XD

lol @ the old emo hippie as well. I love Whatever things

Alja-Markir · Postby **Alja-Markir** » 05 Nov 2007, 14:51

HYRS wrote:2. Alja-Markir and Cake both need to either shut the fuck up or take this outside. At this point neither of you have basic human rights.

Neither myself nor Cake started any sort of discussion, and in fact I expressly stated I would not partake in any such discussion here. I did, however, express a point of view and then slightly clarify that point of view. And I did it without being insulting, unlike you.

In the future, please be more courteous and less high strung.

~Alja~

Yukikaze · Postby **Yukikaze** » 05 Nov 2007, 14:54

Yay, Whatever Thing!

Morgan or Kathleen, someone should do these more regularly.

And Alja, I think I'll just drop by and trash your house without being afraid for my basic human safety. Thanks, see you there.

(trying not to cause a big thing, trying not to cause a big thing, trying not to cause a big thing, LRR Crew didn't like it when we did this last time, trying not to cause a big thing, trying not to cause a big thing... Aww shoot, did I fail AGAIN!?)

tak197 · Postby **tak197** » 05 Nov 2007, 18:55

So yeah, don't you hate Bridezillas? Fuckin' whiners the lot of them!

That should change the subject.

Unclever title · Postby **Unclever title** » 05 Nov 2007, 19:05

In case you haven't noticed this thread is turning into a big discussion on not turning the thread into a big discussion. I know I'm probably not helping by adding to it so I'm going to shut up about it now, you all should do the same.

Back on topic I am quite happy with the return of the Whatever thing, thanks Morgan, it only took you... what a little less than five months? And that's not counting your secret Tibetan extra slacking time (STEST).

Not that I didn't appreciate Kathleen's videos of course. But those are for a different thread.

Yeah Youtube is like a bad downtown neighborhood, while there are walls that keep you safe when you're online, the same kind of people frequent both places, so NOT the best place to announce a party. That's best left for personal email/Myspace/Facebook. At least in these places people have to vaguely know who you are first.

Limited Return

Limited Return

Who is online