IntenseDebate - SavoirFaire

10 years ago @ Daily Camera.com: - Polis sparks controver... · 0 replies · +13 points

Pfft, you first foolishly claimed "you absolutely need more than reasonable doubt." Prove it, I already know that's blatantly untrue.

10 years ago @ Daily Camera.com: - Polis sparks controver... · 4 replies · +10 points

I was told to leave a store not three weeks ago, and people are fired and students expelled for various reasons not proved every day, so clearly not.

10 years ago @ Daily Camera.com: - Polis sparks controver... · 10 replies · +3 points

The rule of law is in the courts.... and shouldn't be in my business, yours, or even in private university business. I don't need proof beyond a reasonable doubt to demand a customer leave my place of business, and neither do you. Nor should we.

10 years ago @ Daily Camera.com: - Transportation enginee... · 0 replies · +8 points

The program is designed to improve safety, regardless of whether bikes, heaven forbid, tip over and don't have airbags (or riders wear helmets). Still chuckling over that, too. You'd think you'd make a little sense.

You are as logically impaired now as when you spent your days counting dog poop.

10 years ago @ Daily Camera.com: - Transportation enginee... · 1 reply · +5 points

Deleting comments now as you did then, eh? Bikes tipping over? No air bags? Certainly not relevant to collecting data on "right-sizing." (You are as batcrap crazy now as you were dog poop crazy ten years ago.)

10 years ago @ Daily Camera.com: - Transportation enginee... · 3 replies · +5 points

That's silly. When widening Folsom, do you think data was collected on the number of drivers wearing seatbelts?

I'd say trading one obsession for another is more demonstrative of a sad existence.

10 years ago @ Daily Camera.com: - Transportation enginee... · 3 replies · +5 points

I see you failed to refute that the data collection for "right-sizing" had nothing to do with wearing a helmet. Pointing out your fanatical obsession with dog poop was just, well, informative.

10 years ago @ Daily Camera.com: - Transportation enginee... · 5 replies · +3 points

I note that is as irrelevant to the city's data collection as is the fact you count dog piles.

10 years ago @ Daily Camera.com: - Boulder DA: Officer ju... · 0 replies · +4 points

Q.E.D. More emotional appeals to deflect from the argument.

That there were victims, or anyone might've been traumatized, officer included, aren't relevant to whether the kid should've been killed. (They also don't excuse the decision to kill him.)

10 years ago @ Daily Camera.com: - Boulder DA: Officer ju... · 0 replies · +5 points

The issue we're discussing (and from which you are deflecting) is whether the fact he cut someone earlier gives reason for shooting him later. (Again, of course it doesn't.)

At the time he was killed the "imminent threat" was naked and alone on a balcony with a hammer, but I give you credit for tossing in assumptions to make your leap seem plausible.

Had you or I shot him, we'd have a court date. So much for a higher standard.

IntenseDebate Comment System

Connect with SavoirFaire

People I'm following

SavoirFaire