Hmmm... none of the articles linked by Theriault or others mention physical stalking taking place, nor do any quotes from legal representation for either side. That might be a case of the media wanting to lead with the twitter angle, but I'd have thought the plaintiffs would put the physical stalking front and center, since it's easier for the legal system to grasp and likely to strengthen the case for them being in fear.

I don't use Twitter so I was wondering how she continued to get Tweets after she blocked him. The Globe article claims that her friends got messages from him and then send them along to her, even after she blocked him? I'm wondering why her friends didn't simply block him as well, wouldn't that make her friends complicit?
This just makes no sense whatsoever. If he was stalking her in the real world as well however, that puts it on a new level.

If you read nothing but the tweets, sure: just seems like a guy who didn't agree with this woman and kept tweeting at her for months after she blocked him and asked him to stop... Part of that is because a lot of the most offending tweets have been deleted from his account by him. The deletion of the comments is mentioned here: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/man-charged-with-harassment-for-twitter-messages/article5534782/

But that also leaves out the fact that, after he soured and continually tweeted at her calling her awful/misandrist/ etc, he also started showing up at events she was at, photographing her place of work, and stalking her. A friend of hers said as such: https://twitter.com/anne_theriault/status/621678088829710337

Closer to the truth would be to assume this (or some other physical abuse) happens at least 3-5 times a day in every major metropolitan area, not once per day in all the US. 9 out of 10 aren't caught on camera...and 9 out of 10 of those that are caught on camera are erased by the perpetrators themselves (the cops). It's only when a private citizen records them and doesn't get arrested themselves (and have the recording destroyed) that we see these videos , and that's multiple times a day (yes, we've seen exactly that happen repeatedly, destruction of video, often recorded by another, unseen citizen that comes to light after the cops lie about the incident.).

When a group commits violent crimes every single day without fail, and those in the group who are not being violent stand behind those that are, then this IS the norm, not an outlier. Sorry.

No, doing your job doesn't erase evil violent acts....neither does committing a 'good' act. If it worked that way, we wouldn't need jails, because nearly 100% of criminals have also done good things in their life, if that erased their crime there would be no need for cops at all. EDIT: Even doing 'good' 10 times as much as you do 'evil' makes you evil, not good, in my eyes. 100 good deeds do not erase one evil deed.

This is not the actions of a few, it's the actions of many, perhaps even the actions of the majority of officers, with the backing of ALL other officers and the force itself. That makes them ALL complicit, with the exception of the tiny, statistically insignificant few that actually report their fellow officers...and they get driven off the force by the majority of other officers that won't stand for 'snitching' by harassing, stalking, threatening, attacking, and not backing them up when they're in danger doing their job.

If ANY other group of people did the kinds of crimes cops have been caught on tape doing just this year alone, we would outlaw that group, seize their assets with RICO, and put most of them in jail. When cops do it, at best they usually get a paid vacation and a pat on the back.

I'm talking about the $2500 per inappropriate accessing of her information (which they did over 200 times). Since it's against department rules/policy, they should make the officer that does the action pay the fine personally instead of the way it's set up where the department pays for the officer's crime(s).
It seems like she's somehow not allowed to sue the department or officers for harassment or the others crimes, at least she's not doing that. (often, both the department and officer are legally shielded from responsibility for illegal actions) As I understood, the entire $500000 is ONLY about the accessing her license, and nothing is being done about the officers harassing, stalking, prank calling, threatening, intimidating, or otherwise behaving badly...nothing at all was mentioned in the article about ANY other charges...or really any charges at all for the intimidation. The only repercussion was TO HER, being forcibly moved and taken off street duty (demoted?). WTF?!?
If I ran the department, all 88 of those cops would be fired AND personally sued. It's terribly disappointing that they all seem to get off scott free, and she's still in reasonable fear for her life from the thugs in blue. If that's how they treat their own, how do these officers treat the public, certainly worse.

He's supposed to cut it one stalk at a time.

Too soon?

My family owns and operates a farm, wheat and corn, in Kansas. We use Roundup herbicides sometimes.

Specifically, there is a GMO variant of field corn called "Roundup Ready" where the corn is genetically resistant to the herbicide. Plant a field of that corn, then after it emerges but well before harvesting (obviously) spray it with Roundup, diluted to an appropriate level. All of the pest plants in the field die. The corn looks a little wilted / harried for a few days after spraying, but bounces back and grows out just fine.

We use that specific kind (Roundup Ready) about 1 year out of every 4 or 5, only when pest plants are starting to become an issue. They'd love to sell it to farmers every year, but most only rotate it in when necessary, just like us, and use a small amount of normal seed (not GMO, just some of the normal corn we harvest) held in reserve from previous year(s) in the other years.

Before Roundup (and other major herbicides and pesticides), pest plants could be a major problem. From what my family says, corn can cross-pollinate or do some kind of hybridization with other crops like milo or sorghum or something, which results in a sterile cane-stalk plant like corn that produces no actual grain. Back 20+ years ago, that was a fairly major problem ... but it is very easily controlled nowadays with herbicides, and Roundup in particular.

Pure, concentrated Roundup is pretty nasty stuff. Then again, farmers still use or have used a lot of much nastier stuff during normal farm operations, like Malathion being sprinkled into grain bins to kill off insects and other small pests. I wouldn't want to chug down a glass full of any of that crap, BUT on the other hand I think we're way better as the human race off WITH all these things being used to control what can be or have been significantly damaging pests than how things would be WITHOUT them. Not to mention that all of these things are used in very very trace amounts compared to the actual amount of food produced itself, and usually a *really* long time before it becomes food. I think you'd be pretty hard pressed to detect any of them in the parts-per-multi-multi-billion scale by them time we eat them.


...That being said, the dude walked right in to this one. If his message was "this stuff is 100% safe and beneficial if used properly", I'd actually 100% agree with him. But when he's trying to oversell it by saying that it is perfectly safe to drink a glass of it ... of course somebody is going to call his bluff. Duh.

This one deserves more attention than it currently gets, I'd say:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11447805/Eurozone-faces-first-regional-bankruptcy-as-debt-debacle-stalks-Austrias-Carinthia.html

Short version: Austrian bank ignores due diligence, does shitload of risky business in Balkans/Eastern Europe, business goes sour, trouble gets magnified by several events, bad bank is created, bad bank is now insolvent, new bail-in rules apply -- murder and mayhem everywhere.

The bank itself has a rather fascinating history of corruption within both Austria and Germany. In fact, it was taken over by a public bank from Bavaria under extremely dubious circumstances, and separated again a few years back under equally dubious circumstances. A whole lot of money laundering for our conservative party went through that bank, I can tell you that much.

Good source of entertainment, that one.

Don't be too sure. I once saw a mature bald eagle chased off by a cat. The eagle was low in a tree and suddenly this cat charged it from a nearby brush, hissing, back up and claws swinging. The eagle took off in complete panic.
Pound for pound few animals can match a cat for sheer ferocity. There are youtube vids of them taking on alligators, cobras, bears... There are even some vids of cats stalking hawks and even though the hawks down bluff easily, they are almost always the ones to exit first.

Well, the radius of the moon is about 1,080 miles, and the radius of the Sun is about 432,687 miles.
Do I need to say the rest of your grasp of the science involved is not firm?

Newtboy, please pull out a calculator and punch in 1080 x 400..the answer is 432000.

http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/review/dr-marc-earth/moon-general.html

"The Moon's size and distance contribute to a wonderful coincidence for those of us who live here on Earth. The Moon is about 400 times smaller than the Sun, but it also just happens to be about 400 times closer. The result is that from Earth, they appear to be the same size. And when its orbit around Earth takes the Moon directly between Earth and the Sun, the Moon blocks our view of the Sun in what we call a solar eclipse. This is just the same as when you use your thumb to block your view of something that is both much larger and much farther away."

See, my fairy tale tells me that giant bean stalks are real

I think you have a misunderstanding of what faith is. I have faith that the Sun will rise tomorrow because the evidence shows that it is more likely to happen than not. No one could prove that it would, but my faith is justified based on the evidence. In the same way, I have faith that Christianity is true based on the evidence of the life death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I believe the evidence is extraordinary and sufficient to place my faith in, and that the contrary case is insufficient. Have you ever studied the evidence for the resurrection? If you haven't then you have rejected it based on your preconceived notions and biases rather than because you believe the evidence is insufficient. There are plenty of things we take on faith and believe and are perfectly rational for doing so. Here is a highlight that talks about 5 different things we all take on faith:

Oh Shiny....SOOO much and so large a failure of fact here....
A quick science fact for YOU....(cut and pasted from Google)

How many of earth's moon would fit inside the sun if it were hollow?

Well, the radius of the moon is about 1,080 miles, and the radius of the Sun is about 432,687 miles. The moon and the sun are both spheres, and math tells us how to relate the volume inside a sphere to its radius. I don't know how much math you have done, so let me just tell you the answer and you can maybe ask your teacher for more information. The answer is that you could get about 64.3 million moons inside the Sun if it were hollow.
Do I need to say the rest of your grasp of the science involved is not firm?

I must also tell you, being able to say "we don't know exactly" about what happened BEFORE the big bang is no where near 'faith'...'faith' is making up some BS and claiming 'See, my fairy tale tells me that giant bean stalks are real, you're just deluding yourself that they're all tiny. Just because you (along with everyone else) has never SEEN a giant one means nothing, my book said they're real, so they're real'. Science says 'we've never seen a giant bean stalk, ever, and genetics and physics tell us they never can exist'. The 'faithful' then say 'science is wrong and delusional and ignores all our evidence of giant bean stalks...namely the stories in our book, and look, I found this large bean, it's proof that there are GIANT beans out there.'. If you don't 'believe' the book is 'true', it's useless as 'proof'. Just consider all the other 'holy' books you discount...that's how I see ALL holy books. I only took it one step farther than you, though, before you think differently.

What absolute self-serving garbage... I like how 'stalking' and 'sustained harassment' are "blurry" but threats of physical violence... well thats SUPER well defined...

I talk to people all the time... "I'm an atheist" ... I just walk away

So... in addition to:
- sleeping in on sunday
- eating whatever the fuck you want
- not worrying about going to hell
- have the best comedians

we now have yet another benefit to being an atheist! Thanks, moron!

Sweet monkey jesus, it just gets worse.

The "restraining order" bit? Hah! Stalking women is fucking hilarious!
The "men and women can't be friends"? WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU? and he accuses atheists of lacking a moral compass?

@ChaosEngine wins the internet. He's exactly right, it's not about the orientation, it's about the overt, explicit nature. No one wants to hear about someone's sexual adventures in mixed company, straight or gay.

Hollywood, loves to fall back to a definite gay stereotype though.

Glee was actually guilty of this in the the first few seasons. Kurt, the gay character had a crush on Finn, the straight character, and not only that, they were step brothers. Kurt practically stalked Finn and was downright harassing at times. Yet Finn was portrayed as the jerk for not being "more accepting"

It's ironic, TV and movies had a large role in making America more accepting of homosexuality, but they also perpetuate some shitty stereotypes too. News flash, not all homosexuals are flaming interior decorators.

Oh and ACTUAL homophobes? You're not that good looking. Gays are actually able to restrain themselves from raping you in broad daylight. Shocking, I know.

The corn has already been harvested. This process is just cleaning up the stalks and leaves. This is all ground up and then put in piles to ferment.

That's what "silage" is. It's usually used as a livestock food for farms over the winter. But can also be used for the creation of biofuel. Check out the Wikipedia page.