> "Sorry, once again you're completely wrong and making shit up."

No, you are wrong and making things up.

> "I never said any of that at all."

You never said any of what you wrote?

> "I challenge you to prove me wrong"

Yes, you are wrong.

> "D'OH!"

What's that all about? Homer Simpson or something?

> "I came back for more because you bold faced lied about me in a public
> thread"

Did not.

> "Why have you continued to come back for more time and time again after at
> least 3 times stating you were 'bored'"

Because you are entertaining. You do get boring here and there, true, but stuff like the "move to Somalia" that's entertaining.

> "you didn't read most of my posts"

I read some of your replies, even if I don't take them seriously.

> "'done with this thread'"

Did I say that? (to paraphrase that cop, if Obama can say we are out of Iraq and then come back, why can't I?)

> "(proving you a liar)"

No, you're the liar.

> "I think most of those following this thread have seen which of us is wrong,
> angry, and frustrated, and it ain't me buddy."

I don't know who is or isn't following the thread, and I don't really care or know if anyone following cares. You obviously do, attention seeker that you are.

> "I feel the need to ask, did you get a number of good temporary tattoos
> before you got that 'diploma'? (It sure is seeming more and more like you got
> it from a Cracker Jack box, your complete lack of reading comprehension
> makes it seem unlikely you could have 'earned' one)"

This is the kind of ridiculous statement that makes you "funny." Keep it up.

The only thing that gives me hope is that sometimes people see the light:

Absolutely Uncertain (You Tube video by “Irina”)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgvMGLdc908&list=PLC2A32D103123C08E#t=73
18-minute mini-documentary follows the journey of Irina, a 23-year-old liberal, Jewish New Yorker who voted for Obama in 2008

Why I'm burning my last bridge with Obama
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIMnIh10po0
Join me as I wreck my last artifact of support for the war criminal-in-chief!! *I figured out the fraud a while back, but recently found this shirt in my closet

The problem with this country is it doesn't read. It doesn't inform itself on the issues. I'd probably still be a major nigger hating racist if it wasn't for books. If you want the skinny on that go to my Facebook Notes and read my "Racism Speech" which really isn't a speech so much as it is part of my memoirs to my two boys.

I wasn't really into this Islam thing until I happened to read The Haj by Leon Uris and Because They Hate by Brigitte Gabrielle almost back to back. I'll submit the following to give you an idea of what happened.

“we may describe it, (jihad), as a surgeon's lancet and not a butcher's knife.” Mahmoud Mohammed Taha (I'm sure there are about 200 million dead people that would disagree with him. And this from the guy who's been called the Mahatma Ghandi of Islam.)

About two years ago I ordered some reading material, including Taha's "Second Message", and a “study” Koran to find out what this "Islam thing" was all about. When I was sixteen I was chanting nam yo ho renge kyo to a piece of paper, (gahonzen?), having NO idea what I was doing. A few years later, hair down to my ass and a knapsack on my back, I hitchhiked cross country, got saved in Nashville Tenn. and went to live on a Christian farm in Mansfield Ohio. (Not the prison.) My gra'mom called me a "seeker". As I said, there came a time when I wanted to understand this "religion of peace". It was Humaid's article on jihad I found in my Summarized Bukhari that decided “things” for me.

If Islam is the “religion of peace”, where in Sheikh Abdullah bin Humaid's article on jihad can I find the equivalent of “Love Thy Neighbor” and “good will toward men”? And explain its prominence, and significance almost as an “Introduction”, in a book that's described as “the most authentic and true among the books of the Prophet”: My Summarized Sahih Al-Bukhari. Also address “jihad” as it's defined in Reliance of the Traveller and answer the same question. (Chapter O-9.0: Jihad O: “Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada signifying warfare to establish the religion.” And explain why the “greater” jihad is only mentioned once here and never seen again in this “Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law”.)

Compare Humaid's “jihad” and Emmet Fox' Sermon on the Mount and tell me which one best represents a spirit of Love and “compassion”.

Lastly; would you pick Sheikh bin Humaid to sit on a Human Rights Commission? (That's a trick question by the way.)

Maybe you can throw in an explanation of the Jews are “monkeys, pigs and rats” on page 656 and the part where Mo says, “if somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him” on page 613 in the chapter on Jihad.

Also, explain why Humaid's “jihad” shouldn't be “Exhibit A” in refuting the “religion of peace” claim.

I've posted this many times to many Muslims and have yet to get a single response. Well, I did receive a response from some goofball named “Dr.” Mohsen El-Guindy asking me to read his books. Instead I downloaded a bunch of his articles. Which were pure rants. An Imam, sidestepped it by telling me I had to “study Islam” to gain a greater understanding.

Jihad in the Qur'an and Sunnah by 'Sheikh Abdullâh bin Muhammad bin Humaid
ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?233460-Jihad-in-the-Qur-an-and-Sunnah&s=4df3fc2e4e0596eb3b38115ef4b8f506 ),

Subscribe to Jihad/Campus Watch and the Middle East Forum/Quarterly, Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), Gatestone Institue, FrontPage Magazine, American Thinker,The Clarion Project, Cross Muslims: Muhammad unveiled, Religion of Peace (dot com) and read Raymond Ibrahim, Efraim Karsh, Patrick Poole, Caroline Glick, Bat Ye'or and others.

“She's Buried Chest High”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXdy5Fwwfzg

“An appeaser is one who feeds the crocodile hoping it will eat him last. Victory will never be found by taking the line of least resistance.” Winston Churchill

“What the horn is to the rhinoceros, what the sting is to the wasp, the Mohammedan faith is to the Arabs of the Sudan-a faculty of offence. All the warlike operations of Mohammedan peoples are characterised by fanatacism” Winston Churchill

“While Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, Parsees and Jews, along with several million adherents of an animistic religion, all coexisted in relative harmony, one religion that would not accept compromise stood out from the rest: Islam.” Mahatma Gandhi

...aaaand as the profane would have it, it takes the seekers the artists and the dreamers to resurrect a quality offering to add to the mix of the inordinately mundane fare which litters the Videosift.

You da man, shagen454-Dimty-dimty do dah day!

look...at..you!
/giggles in delight

the path proceeds as understanding blooms.
loving wings of illuminated gossamer float on the sea of epiphany,
empathy and compassion emerge,
breaking the chains of egocentricity.
the lyric of truth enlightens the seekers path.

as the man pushes further...onward and upward.

and the watched becomes the watcher..once again.

namaste my friend.
namaste.

ah thank you for your kind words my friend.
much appreciated.

many here on this site of late appear to have acquired super powers and have the ability to discern my intentions.
which to my surprise are always egotistical in nature....the mind..it baffles.

the belittling,trolling and smug arrogance grates on my nerves and is so un-necessary.
all multiple forms of bullying i detest.

little kings..
in their little fiefdoms..
demanding respect while giving none.

i would chuckle if it were not so heart breaking.

but i am duty bound to stand up and point to the rot and the decay.
few ears listen and even rarer for a heart to be touched.

and even when i do that my words are ridiculed and dismissed.
corruption seeks to blind the seeker and deafen one who would listen.whispering always to the most intimate and despicable of our natures.
selfishness knows no bounds...it just wants more.

i am losing this battle.
my integrity..questioned.
my motivations...projected by those with lesser constitutions.
sacrifices ..all in vain,for naught but a harsh word and a suspicious glare.

as if i were the enemy.

where is the love?
the joy of creation and just being?
of connecting with another and rejoicing in that small moment of realization?

ah my friend,i struggle with those who choose pettiness over substance and to the absolute deafening roar of silence.the pervasive shadow of fear has infected and conquered more territory over the past year,seeping like a stain.

and the oblivious rejoice in their own ignorance.
thinking themselves clever.
doom has never before held such a beautiful and entrancing countenance.
we revel in our own stink and call it lovely.
dancing like macabre ghosts on a sterile landscape...
love and joy left long ago...
and we clap like monkeys and gleefully chatter as the noose is drawn tighter.
and the smell of death and fear grow stronger,but the allure of violence distracts us from our own emptiness.

what is it worth if there is no love?

ah..but this is why yours was/is so precious.
thank you my friend.

there is love,
and with that...
there is hope.

because i love you.

Ok firstly for ChaosEngine, your paraphrased quote of statements which voiced a sentiment I have had since engaging in conversation with seekers about the existence of 'God or no God': The same mechanism of filtering the words you read through your own belief system is a time-honored technique of the most fundamentalist of back-assward Christians and theologians who read the words of the Bible and fit them conveniently into their limited world view filtered through a similar limited and linear, perception of existence.

(*edit-I now realize that you did not in fact, paraphrase my statement rather, bcglorf's , but the sentiment remains true)

My statement was (and yes Dannym3142, that was NOT supposed to be a question mark, edited with the appropriate period): "I have a legitimate beef with rabid supporters of any particular ideology or philosophy when the shit becomes tiresome and repetitious when tinctured with rage and anger and intolerance."

Your paraphrase of sentiment ChaosEngine, "evangelical atheists are as bad as fundamentalists," then followed by "bollocks" (bullshit), is indicative to me of the rage and anger I attributed to the average atheist's consternation with these 'stupid', 'backwards', 'hillbillies' etc.,(who are too dumb or dense to wrap their heads around the very idea that an omnipresent uni-being does not exist, yadda yadda yadda.) Further, the example used 'When was the last time atheists shot a young girl for wanting to go to school?' to justify your position is reminiscent of any Southern Baptist preacher using similar extreme examples of the human condition to support their own arguments for the infallibility of their 'god'. The words used connote a similar intolerance and ignorance of that which is wholly metagnostic or, 'the unknowable' and I regard the mechanism as the selfsame dynamic.

"So, sorry if I'm not going to sit down and STFU about it." Good. It means you are on the path to enlightenment and intend to continue to seek truths which satisfy the gnawing curiosity that ALL humans are frought with in our tenure here on Earth. Keep at it.

dannym3142: (sorry for the question mark, it confused me as well when reading it again) I used Crowley and Planck's observations as an exercise in tossing a non-linear curve-ball into the circle-jerk of those whose search for absolute truth and the nature of the universe, of matter/non-matter, seemingly ended when they decided that it's a no-brainer as to whether or not faith has a place in the argument for or against the existence of a supreme being. Faith can't be argued either, we all need it to perform the simplest of our daily monkey-tasks.

Yes-I was chastising VooDooV for the blanket of down-votes to my comments because I sense his rage and anger at my input on threads similar, and recognize in atheists the same robotic mechanism they accuse Christians of which litter blog after blog when God is mentioned, by the ever-incrasing rabid anti-god fan-boys who attack with guns blazing at the very mention of that which is unable to be understood when approaching it from linear patterns of thought. That, and I refuse ever-again be ganged-up on on this site by a few well-be-nots who have it out for me because they can't understand what the fuck I am trying to communicate. I let my guard down in the past and it cost me over a year in SIFTJAIL (to all you fucking wannabe cops here present and future, suck my balls!)

Your fight is not with God but with the exponentially-increasing non-linearity of the world we inhabit, and the chaotic desire to process the information coming into the grid with time-honored methods of argument. IMLTHO this doesn't work.

All the seemingly trollish statements I make on similar threads are made with a view to wrenching another way of thinking out of the stubborn adherents to any one pattern or direction of mental process.

It can't be argued that a realm of universes exist outside of our own limited perceptive apparatus and all argument ends there for myself for the sake of my own insanity.

One's spiritual path is simply that-One's. Seekers and non-seekers-All paths lead to all paths, it's one's imprints and socialization that fucks everyone up their own asses-Western-oriented Buddhists can appear as more whack than any Mormon-When someone reads the words, "I am the way, the truth, and the life" for instance, the words are still with god and of god...Takes' a human to fuck up anything righteous when they think to hard-

One persons love may look like shit to another-Jesus hung out with thieves, whores, idolators, etc-Try to get a born-again asshole to do THAT!

If you had been reading more closely, you might have noticed that I never said the OT was irrelevant; I said that the moral and ceremonial laws given to Israel were done away with. It is still the word of God and much of it concerns prophecy which confirms Jesus as the Messiah and prophecy about the last days.

What you consider to be progress is to discard Gods laws and believe that you can enlighten yourself up to His level. This is exactly what caused humanity to fall in the first place; it's the same lie that human beings have been chasing since the beginning of time. What spiritual progressives/relativists cannot understand is that you can't build a ladder up to Heaven. You can't get anywhere near a holy God on your own. That holy God, in the person of Jesus Christ, had to bring a ladder down to Earth for us. And to get on that ladder you have to pay a very heavy price; you have to die. When you get on that ladder you don't get to do whatever you want anymore. You have to be holy as He is holy, and that's exactly what all of these seekers of the esoteric and "secret knowledge" don't want to do. That's all this relativity amounts to; justifying rebellion against God so you can do whatever you want. Or as aleister crowley summed it up "do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the law". That is from Satans lips to your ears.

Good point, and I love your freudian typo, "legal and legal immigrants" (if you have a link to the doc...). The problem of homeless immigrants here is a complicated one: there are shelters for asylum-seekers but they a) are not numerous enough to keep up with the growing influx, b) try to prioritize women/children, c) have trouble with interethnic squabbles (which can grow to full-fledged knife-fights, thank FSM we don't have guns in easy circulation), d) have to deal with the profiteers/criminals giving them a bad rep.
In addition to this, those who have been denied permission to stay are less likely to show up at state-run shelters where they are liable to be found out and escorted out (of the country). Finally, criminal tourism* in Europe (especially the richer countries, like CH) is a real problem, one the US does not experience.

*a huge topic of its own, but some examples in CH are French car-thieves, Romanian mafia-organised begging/breaking-and-entering (often using children so as not to get penalised), North African drug-dealing (the hard stuff), etc. None of these make it easier for the population to be more accepting of the vast majority of non-criminal foreigners from these parts, because it is as usual the criminals who are the most visible.

T H E R E M I N

I can't take this shit seriously unless they spell Theremin correctly as spiritually and pseudo-scientifically empirical and Sophistic-ally-challenged and all...However, this diatribe affords a window into the mind of a fellow seeker, take a number!

>> ^UsesProzac:

"Or does this exist and is yet another example of Videosift having no good documentation/help?"
What do you mean, no good help? Every Sift Talk gets addressed. I've yet to find another community like this where the admins will personally answer your question.


You toadyally missed the point. It doesn't change the FACT that the "documentation/help" is woefully outdated and incomplete. Asking questions in ST or (egads) searching ST is far from the most efficient way to get info, both for the seeker of info and the admins you think always/usually/often/sometimes/occasionally address one's questions, questions that could be much more easily answered once in a central, searchable, isolated (perhaps a separate choice in "go advanced") bank of information, wisdom, and dogma. I still don't know wtf I can put in the WTF channel.

Edit: Oops, didn't realize this was two weeks old.

@ReverendTed
You have been a courteous sparring partner so I will try to answer in kind, but I must admit being very exasperated by your last response. Moreover, I do not think I want to pursue a debate with someone who cannot see how adoption-in-place-of-abortion is neither feasible nor even remotely ethical (vis-à-vis the woman, the would-be child and human society in general). So this will probably be my last wall of self-indulgent dross.

Let’s get one thing out of the way: we both agree that we need more education all ‘round, on all subjects. And as you know, those most opposed to it are the same that are against abortion. Abstinence education is redundant when proper sex-ed is given, because it goes without saying that “no sex = no unwanted pregnancies” is a part of basic sex-ed. Of course, it is un-pragmatic to expect teenagers (or anyone for that matter) to forego sex, so why harp on it, other than for misguided religious purposes?

Your conception of consciousness is fuzzy at best. Everything we feel, experience, etc. is due to electro-chemical reactions in our body/brain. Magical thinking is saying some non-physical “me” exists attached to it, what religious people call a soul. Consciousness is not subordinate to cognition in terms of value, but in the sense that without the one (cognition) you simply don’t have the other (“subordinate” as in “dependent upon”). I mentioned blind-from-birth people for a good reason; they have no visual aspect to their consciousness, their identity/consciousness is built upon the other sensory input. Now imagine a being that has zero sensory input (or a central system capable of making use/sense of it), and you have a mass of muscles/cells/organs devoid of consciousness. And that is what is aborted before the 25th week. I must make it clear, however, that even if this developed much earlier it would still be the woman’s prerogative to choose what she does with her own body/life. In that respect I think the “viability” argument is a pragmatic (albeit conservative) one, because it draws the line between an excrescence and a (possibly) autonomous being.

After the first two paragraphs, your response goes from bad to worse. What I said about adoption v abortion still stands, but I would add that it is still forcing women to go through a pregnancy they do not want (thus still affecting the quality of their lives), not to mention leaving them with the guilt of abandonment, the kids with issues, etc etc. And all for what? So some third person’s unfounded superstitions be upheld? And then you have the gall to compare criminalising abortion with criminalising incest and crazy people locking up/raping their families. You seriously need to think a bit before making comparisons. In the case of child abuse and/or rape (incest itself is a victimless crime, but that’s for a different discussion), there are actual victims, for one, and secondly, the crazies would lock them up whether it was legal or not, because it is a question of absolute control over the other.

Since you cite Guttmacher statistics, allow me to suggest you read a little more:

• Highly restrictive abortion laws are not associated with lower abortion rates. For example, the abortion rate is 29 per 1,000 women of childbearing age in Africa and 32 per 1,000 in Latin America—regions in which abortion is illegal under most circumstances in the majority of countries. The rate is 12 per 1,000 in Western Europe, where abortion is generally permitted on broad grounds.

• Where abortion is permitted on broad legal grounds, it is generally safe, and where it is highly restricted, it is typically unsafe. In developing countries, relatively liberal abortion laws are associated with fewer negative health consequences from unsafe abortion than are highly restrictive laws.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_IAW.html

So basically pushing for the criminalisation of abortion is pushing for there to be more abortions, and more dangerous ones.

You note how a large percentage of abortion-seekers are above the poverty line. Obviously, they can afford it / are aware of the possibility. Ever notice how the poor/uneducated tend to have more kids than the others? Do you really think being poor makes you want to have more mouths to feed? Or perhaps it is because they lack access to contraception/abortion (not to mention the poor/uneducated tend to be more religious; religion thrives on misery). Of the “developed” world the US is a bit of a special case, because it is so backward with regards to healthcare and contraception. Notice how most women in the US pay for their abortion out of pocket, and “Nearly 60% of women who experienced a delay in obtaining an abortion cite the time it took to make arrangements and raise money.” (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html/) As an aside, the religious right here in Switzerland (not as influential but almost as stupid and backward thinking as that of the US) are trying to make abortion be no longer covered by the universal healthcare system.

On the “potential” question, everything has been said. I’d simply point out that your “95%” potential leaves out something absolutely crucial, namely the choice of the woman to terminate the abortion, which can reduce that to “0%”. You say “it’s nearly guaranteed”, but so what? Two people having heterosexual vaginal sex without projection over a long period of time will conceive of a child, it’s “nearly guaranteed”, therefore every possible pairing of male and female should have continuous unprotected sex otherwise they are depriving potential beings from existing. “But what if they don’t want to?” Exactly, what if the woman doesn’t want a child at that moment? See how absurd the “potential” argument is?

I’ll risk making this wall of text even wallyer and propose an analogy, The Analogy of the Film and Camera. When you put a film in a camera, the potential for it becoming a strip of individual, unique photos goes up. But so long as no pictures are taken, so long as nothing is imprinted on the film’s receptive surface, you lose no individual photos by taking the film out, and there’s the same amount of potential if you put in a different film at a different time. It’s wonky, I know, but it illustrates that potential individual (the film) is not the same as existing individual (the photo), nor does destroying the first cause any damage to the second, because the second doesn’t exist yet.

The comparison with the IGB campaign is terribly inappropriate and simply false. In one case it is question of keeping living individuals from ending their lives, whereas abortion is about preventing eventual individuals from coming into existence because it would harm the quality of life of an already existing individual (as well as the one to be). IGB is about giving people options/hope, whereas criminalising abortion is about taking that away (from women, to give it to the mind projections of superstitious third parties). The only connection between the two is that in both cases the unsubstantiated beliefs of third persons impinge on an individual’s quality of life and liberty. I already addressed your “good from bad” argument, which you draw out again in an emotionally manipulative way (which frankly made me sick).

On eugenics, oh boy. What you’re saying is akin to saying “self-defence should be outlawed because otherwise some (like Zimmerman) might commit crimes and say it was self-defence”. Or, a little closer to home perhaps: “we shouldn’t have universal healthcare because some might fraud”. Yes, some people fraud the insurance, and yes, some people are aggressive and try to pass it as self-defence. That’s why we have a judicial system. Bringing in eugenics is seriously grasping at straws and you know it.

I’ll end my last contribution to this exchange with the following: having a child should never be an inevitability. Bringing a human life into existence is way too big a responsibility to be an obligation. A women’s body is her own, to deal with as she chooses, uterus and co. included.

Cheers

While I'm sure he's got plenty to fear from the U.S there is the issue of the allegations from the two women in Sweden.

Here's an interesting piece, updated to the 16/8/12 from a legal perspective. The final line might give you a taste of the contents;

[edit, here's the link!]
http://ffgqc.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/julian-the-asylum-seeker/

" If the Americans, the Swedes and the British are engaged in a sinister plot to deny him his rights, by subverting proper legal processes, then the founder of Wikileaks has a duty to tell us, in detail, what is going on and what is being done in our name."

@renatojj Ah, its nice to be called a socialist for once. Where I come from, they call me a right wing capitalist
Any economic system is as cooperative as the next. That is the definition of an economic system, a system where economic transactions take place, ie cooperation. So capitalism is NOT more (or less) cooperative than other isms. (And mercantilism and corporate capitalism (corporatism right?) are forms of capitalism ;-) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism)

Definition of capitalism:
"an economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state" - oxford dictionary
Emphasis is on "for profit". So yes, all capitalist are per definition profit seeking. Relentless is something that follows Darwin. Those who are more relentless get higher profits and have more money to grow, invest, invent, etc. They eventually push out less relentless profit seekers so the relentless ones are the only ones left.
And remember you said them first, not me. I just said that capitalism tries to achieve profit and as competition drives prices down one way to do so is to minimize cost, ie become more efficient. So there is always a drive for efficiency in capitalism.
I am not against profit seeking, I believe that capitalism is the system that pushes the most growth in most regions, be it economic growth, technological progress, etc. That also makes it a rat race, where you continually need to go faster to keep up. As I am getting older I see that running is not the only game in town. And in most cases it detracts from happiness more then other methods in the long run (though it brings more wealth). Given also the finite resource problem and it is a good discussion to have if capitalism is the best and only economic system we should have on this planet. Like I said, for another time.

"The Libor and derivatives markets scandals, are not examples of free markets at all, they're abuses where the bad behavior was encouraged by policy"

What? What policy? The entire idea of over-the-counter (OTT, the largest amount by far) derivatives was that they are traded without any supervision or visibility. Complete free market! That and the inability to value and understand the risk per unit made for instance the Credit Default Swaps so dangerous. These were perfectly legal, and are still in most cases. The market is still unregulated today. You can argue that in the end it wasnt a free market because they got bailed out. Bullshit. They got bailed out because the other option was to let the entire economic system collapse. Letting the system collapse is not free markets, its stupid. The damage would have been catastrophic. The markets wouldnt repair that, they wouldnt exist anymore. That is why people call the derivatives market an example of a free market that should have been more regulated, because they had the power to destroy everything and the incentive to take the risk (for profit).
The way the bailout happened (and is still happening) is total and utter crap, but that is a different story all together.

Which leads again to the same question: if not the (IMHO obvious) derivatives market, name me an example of a free market?

>> ^mintbbb:

>> ^ant:
news laws blocked
I wonder if she knows about this. Conan should have her come to her show!

CHAGRIN FALLS, Ohio — A local police officer has become an instant celebrity all because of who she looks like. Chagrin Falls Police Sgt. Amber Dacek recently went Hollywood thanks to an interview on FOX 8.
Dacek was featured on the Conan O’Brien show earlier this week. O’Brien showed video from a FOX 8 story where Dacek was being interviewed. The sergeant has a lot of features that resemble the late-night talk show host.
“There is a resemblance, definitely. We both have big foreheads and red hair,” Dacek said by phone.
This isn’t the first time Sgt. Dacek has been told she looks like Conan O’ Brien.
“The kids in town used to call me that all the time,” said Dacek. “I think they thought they could make me cry, or something, try and pick on me.”
The video clip aired on Conan O’ Brien’s show earlier this week. Sgt. Dacek didn’t see the show live, but caught a recording of it a day later when her colleagues brought it to her attention.
“I thought the clip was funny. I am not much of an attention seeker,” she said.
Dacek has watched O’ Brien’s shows before, but admits she doesn’t watch it regularly, because she is either sleeping or working when the show is on the air.
“It didn’t necessarily excite me to see myself on national TV, but I do think it’s funny, and it’s all in good fun, I guess,” Dacek said.
The celebrity status didn’t end with Conan O’ Brien. Sgt. Dacek was featured on FOX 8 News in the Morning on Friday with Kenny and Wayne.
“I’m surprised that there is such a to-do about just the fact that I look like somebody,” she said.
Not just anybody, but a well-known Hollywood Celebrity.
Dacek said she has not been contacted by Conan O’ Brien’s staff to make any appearances on the show.
(http://fox8.com/2012/06/08/local-police-sergeant-conan-doppelganger/)< br>

Thanks.