Wilkens was awarded more than $180,000 in total damages.

Jurors additionally determined that Edwards acted with negligence when his police car rear-ended Wilkens’ motorcycle, but ruled that the veteran state trooper did not violate Wilkens’ rights by pointing a gun at him and using force to handcuff and then pull Wilkens to his feet.

Wilkens suffered a broken left clavicle, a fractured rib and other injuries in the Aug. 3, 2012, incident.

http://registerguard.com/rg/news/local/33955359-75/federal-jury-rules-in-favor-of-speeding-motorcyclist-against-oregon-state-police-trooper.html.csp

Some other nice bits in the article, the officer was driving an unmarked chevy camaro, was unaware that it was equipped with a dash cam, and blamed the rear ending of the bike on 'brake fade' (which a brake expert testified was rare in modern brake systems).

It's a fun read, also the cop was later promoted to captain.

What?
Try reading. Your entire post makes no sense except as a trolling attempt.

I don't "see how my arguments don't hold water", I never said anything of the sort, and you can't explain how they don't, still. In fact, you can't seem to even comprehend my argument. You certainly haven't replied to it.

What I did day is I was incorrect about one minor point because apparently she canceled the one event NOT on the advice of the police (even though at the time that's what was reported)....but because the police in this case didn't take safety or death threats seriously at all and refused to limit firearms at the event in any way or offer her/the audience any protection, so canceling this one event was intelligent and proper.
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/58521856-78/sarkeesian-usu-video-feminist.html.csp

You have not shown her to be a 'full of shit con artist'. For your proof of her evilness and hatred and derision of sex workers, you pointed me to 2 vitriolic commentaries about a single innocuous phrase she said with no context to show her intent/meaning, and a third completely unrelated article about Westborough Church, and now you say that proves something? Still better than your first try which turned out to be by a guy who begins by clearly explaining how his organization cuts and re-edits videos to show what he wants rather than what actually happened. Who's full of shit now?

I never said "But if". Please stop making shit up to get angry about, it's the third time in this thread alone that you've attributed things I never said to me, twice in this single post. That's a useless infantile trolling argument style right there.

And so now you make up your own ridiculous, statistically impossible "What if" scenario to prove....? I guess to prove that you'll make up and believe any crazy thing rather than concede there was a specific danger she attempted to avoid (and I will note she didn't cancel other events where firearms would NOT be allowed inside, even after the threats, so what's your point in the first place?)


I made the point quite clearly above, I'll repeat it for your convenience. If this was an airplane flight with a bomb threat, it would have been canceled. It's statistically far more likely that the shooting threat is credible than any airplane bombing threat, so if it's reasonable to cancel the threatened flight (and they do), it's more reasonable to cancel the event.

You're just trolling here now, you're not making any salient point and you're just blatantly making things up to argue about. I think you're just pushing to be ignored now.

EDIT: and damn, I totally missed the racist bit the first time through your post. " ..What if that "good guy with gun vs. black bad guy with a gun" bullshit actually worked out." I'm thinking it's a mistake to continue engaging someone I would avoid in real life like the plague, so buh bye.

HOLY CRAP!!! I would have canceled under those conditions too.
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/58521856-78/sarkeesian-usu-video-feminist.html.csp
The reasoning the FBI gave for saying that "the threats against Sarkeesian would not prevent a safe lecture, even if firearms are permitted" was that similar recent threats to kill her had not been carried out yet. Even though there had been numerous specific threats to mass murder attendees, Utah state law prevented them from restricting firearm possession at the event, they weren't even going to check for them (to know who to watch). So while I was wrong to say she did it because of police advice, I do think it was the smart decision. Imagine if she had gone ahead with her event after the threats and someone shot 45 people, starting with her. At that point, "I told you so" seems pretty hollow.

Well, even if you did say they were toxic I'd have agreed with you, like others here have said any reasonable comments made would have been buried under a metric fuckton of bullshit anyhow.

I think there is a misunderstanding here however, when GenjiKilpatrick and others are talking about Sarkeesian "being called on her shit" they mean the reasoned criticism, not the threats, nobody here is arguing in favor of that.
I am curious though, unless you know something about these threats that I don't, how do you know that they are in fact "Serious"? Most people can dream up all kinds of crazy shit or even talk about it, but that still doesn't put you into Dexter Morgan territory (Dexter would be too polite to say anything like that anyhow, and Sarkeesian doesn't fit Harry's Code).
If you are referring to the UCU lecture that she cancelled, then no, neither campus security nor the FBI advised her against going through with the appearance, she made that choice on her own.
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/58528113-78/sarkeesian-threats-threat-usu.html.csp

You also say "It's unseemly to imply a single woman should ignore such threats or assume they are not credible", which makes me wonder if this was a man we were talking about would you still feel the same way? Adam Orth received death threats to both himself and his family and while it did create a lot of discussion, even heated discussion, it did not generate the same kind of mass outrage that this has so far. Gabe Newell also got a threat from a developer some time back and that got barely a peep out of anyone.
Simply put, we still live in a society that puts on a good public show of equality for men and women, but privately we still teach our little boys that men are still the true protectors of our society. We don't get as upset when men face danger because that is what we expect of them, and this kind of deeply embedded cultural belief is the real heart of sexism in our society. This debate over the role of women in video games is all superficial because I believe it comes from those much older beliefs.

http://dogtime.com/salt-lake-city-dog-shot-by-police-sparks-protest.html

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/58109655-78/police-kendall-dog-lake.html.csp

participated in this conference, back in 2004.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by vaporlock.

>> ^chilaxe:

For those interested in why nothing gets done about these kinds of things, the independent investigation's conclusion was:
"Our best conclusion is it would have taken less than half a second for Mr. Blair to close that gap and strike the officer [with a weapon of an unknown nature at the time].”
I'm not defending that reasoning, but it's good to know how the investigations look at these things.
Source: http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/50932722-76/blair
-burnett-officers-police.html.csp?page=4


Drunk drivers might attempt to swerve at the last moment to avoid the pedestrian but it's their actions that led up to the need to swerve in the first place that is criminal.

Same in this case.

For those interested in why nothing gets done about these kinds of things, the independent investigation's conclusion was:
"Our best conclusion is it would have taken less than half a second for Mr. Blair to close that gap and strike the officer [with a weapon of an unknown nature at the time].”

I'm not defending that reasoning, but it's good to know how the investigations look at these things.

Source: http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/50932722-76/blair-burnett-officers-police.html.csp?page=4

>> ^Trancecoach:

Yes, it's an open secret that Bill W. believed that LSD was a "shortcut" of sorts for the 12 steps he developed.
Here's a resource to get you started.
(By the bye, one of my jobs is as the exec. dir. for the peer-reviewed journal that published much of the early research on LSD's effects on the mind.)
>> ^Boise_Lib:
Wait, back up. Bill Wilson...Really?
This information meshes with some research of my own. Is there source material on Bill W.'s experience?




Very Cool, Thanks coach.

This ties up more than one thread for me into a nice package! I've been looking into the relationship between AA and other means of personal enlightenment for quite a while.

Yes, it's an open secret that Bill W. believed that LSD was a "shortcut" of sorts for the 12 steps he developed.

Here's a resource to get you started.

(By the bye, one of my jobs is as the exec. dir. for the peer-reviewed journal that published much of the early research on LSD's effects on the mind.)

>> ^Boise_Lib:

Wait, back up. Bill Wilson...Really?
This information meshes with some research of my own. Is there source material on Bill W.'s experience?

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by vaporlock.

NASA warming scientist: 'This is the last chance'

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/environment/2008-06-23-globalwarming_N.htm?csp=34

As always QMs argument consists of nothing but assumptions, conjectures, and malicious retreading of history rather then basing anything in reality.

The National Intelligence Estimate has clearly stated that the surge has failed to bring about the most important objective of the 'surge' to allow drawdown in US combat forces letting the Iraqis take over, and this is after General Petraues toned down it's findings. Generals in Iraq operate in quick spurts of over blown security, political and press delegations are taken in on DOD/Pentagon secured dog and pony tours of the country, with high security provided by US forces boosted further PowerPoint presentations behind the secured walls of the Green Zone. Top commanders are differing on their own assessments about the way forward. The House is going to hold it's own hearings on the Iraq war because it probably cannot trust the White house anymore. Thus the picture being presented is false.

But that doesn't really matter because the same policy will stay in its form until about April 2008 at least, I don't see any surprises as about the testimony from Petraeus and Crocker coming up on September 11th (or whatever date it is now), just more of "Give us time and we will achieve success", much like what we heard in Vietnam over and over again until the US had no choice but to leave.

Which to me ultimately reads more like a fervent hope then any real strategic plan or foresight, I mean we supposedly 'accomplished the mission', 'turned the corner', were on the verge of success so many times before, yet goshdarnit we just missed it every time mostly at the expense of Iraqi and American lives.

At the end of the day a maintenance of the current strategy in the long term will result in two very obvious consequences;

US ground forces will capitulate as you cannot simply extend tours to 15 months and expect people to go back for the 5th or 6th time, the draft would have to be re-instated to provide more ground forces (for Iraq, Afghanistan and any planned incursion in Iran). More reliance would be placed on private military contractors to provide additional force components.

The expenditure towards the conflict would simply sap the US economy eventually, as it's foreign debt obligations increase further, and as the administration pulls more and more funding into the Iraq war without any logical consequence or trickle down to the actual forces doing the fighting. I mean the US will not fail catastrophically, it will just mean that spending on everything else will just vanish. Higher taxes are obviously out of the question, so that would mean more borrowing from other nations.

Bush plans to ask Congress next month for up to $50 billion in additional funding for the war in Iraq, which would come on top of about $460 billion in the fiscal 2008 defense budget and $147 billion in a pending supplemental bill to fund the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Meaning the war costs come to roughly 3 billion every week. Who pays for that eventually? the US taxpayer who is already on track for a $59 trillion obligation. Now there is talk of a confrontation with Iran.

Strategic oil resources are an important unmentioned factor in all this, the US doesn't want Iran influencing the actions of any Iraqi goverment structure that could possibly come into effect, yet it believes that that it is the only one that stands in the way of such a thing occurring, even as it's spent nearly $20 billion in supplying arms to Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Egypt, Kuwait and other smaller GCC nations.

All the war drumming against Iran in the US is only helping Iranian goverment clamp down further on political dissenters because it can point out a clear foreign threat that is gathering - eliminating civil liberties, attacking free press, and intellectuals by labeling them as foreign agents trying to destabilize the goverment. So in many ways both the Bush and Ahmadinejad are reaching their own objectives, Bush gets a pass on the Iraqi war by labeling Iran as a new threat, Ahmadinejad gets to garner more power and install more cronies into the goverment replacing technocrats.

But then again you probably read Blackfive so I wouldn't bother going into too much detail lest the facts overwhelm your preconceived assumptions.