Gromnir

I dismiss these news as a rule, like you'd dismiss any statistically present crime - what piqued my interest was his pov. yeah? you is repeating what we said for a reason? we were criticizing you precisely 'cause you agreed with the killer's pov. and yes, you legitimized, apologized and defended. we can post your statements again so that we can see how you thinks that the noweigan killer is well-educated, courageous, and a contributing member o' society. HA! as has already been noted, in a free society you cannot hope to complete stop a loser who wants to create mayhem. the fact that these incidents happen in the west is hardly surprising. you brought up columbine, but did you check up on what happened? how 'bout some other American school tragedies. bath school were 1927 and 35+ were killed. university o' texas were 1966 and 13 were left dead... many wounded. 2007 saw the virginia tech incident and 35 dead. columbine were 12 dead in 1999. now be so kind as to draw a connection to common societal factors. how 'bout the unabomber? his manifesto also had a great deal of "we" and "our" language in it, but he were just one creepy hermit living in a shack. would be much easier to note that in each case you had depressed and angry males with access to firearms and explosives. you wanna hypothesize and guess 'bout the future without considering similar events in the past? be our guest. so, this joker has got a highly plagiarized and pathetic manifesto, and you is moved by his plight and pov? great. is 'cause you share the pov, no? lord knows we ain't gonna let you drag us into a multiculturalism debate. the only aspect we found intriguing 'bout your posts were the defense o' breivik and your seeming belief that breivik were a harbinger o' things to come. HA! Good Fun!

clearly you is looking to get our attention, but until you offer up something o' substance, you is gonna get very little consideration. we s'pose that some people is just slow learners. *shrug* HA! Good Fun!

*groan* clear missing the point. Gromnir is dismissive o' the norwegian child killer. what has he done to deserve attention and consideration? is it his published works? does he have significant life experience that makes him noteworthy? the only reason you give a darn about this clown is 'cause you agree with his pov, and 'cause he killed enough children to gain infamy. do not misunderstand; is not breivik who we rails 'gainst in this thread... is you, and those like you. we didn't respond in this thread until you posted. you is giving breivik what he wants. you is legitimizing him. oh sure, you does the social acceptable thing by noting that breivik's actions is wrong, but you suggest that his words is worth consideration and that his existence is the result o' societal forces... "Berivik (if that's the way his name is spelled) is the result of multiculturalist dogma that doesn't allow an inch for the expression of other ideas and concerns and ignores the fact that there are many people who do not agree with it." you defend the guy's intelligence and character in spite o' considerable evidence to the contrary. self-employed and educated? HA! breivik is nobody. one guy. one loser. he is an aberration. after all, how frequent does we see such behavior? not even one-in-a-million. heck, limit yourself to all the jackboot wearing racists you can find and you still not gonna get one-in-million to go on a ridiculously misguided killing spree. nope. breivik needs no response... but folks like you is common. 78 people died in a plane crash in morocco yesterday. 32 people died in a land slide in south korea this morning. am wondering how many people died in seemingly unnecessary fighting in sub-saharan africa on the same day as the events in norway. nevertheless, breivik has captured your attention and you actual sympathize with his pov. tragic. btw, if stuff like columbine were actual representative of societal ills, you would see'em more frequent, no? perhaps you thinks multiculturalism in europe is bad. we disagree. perhaps you thinks that govt. censorship o' unpopular points of view is bad. we agree. nevertheless, to point to breivik as anything other than a pathetic and cowardly killer o' children is a mistake. his only accomplishment is mayhem, but you wanna make'em a poster child for the disenfranchised preppy wannabee element... or some-such. HA! Good Fun! ps comparison to columbine is probable more appropriate than you suspect. do a search... were not a man doing the shooting.

Where from? we already hinted where-from. is kinda ironic given the fact that the guy he plagiarized were at the other end o' the left-right continuum. the guy you admire simply changed the leftist language to righty. *snort* HA! Good Fun! Don't be snide. Agreeing that someone's political views might hold a grain of truth does not equate to justification of his acts. I personally think he should be shot, as his crime is great. His crime however does not discredit the work of the many conservative authors he cites and their conclusions/ideas or some of his comments (like the disgraceful position of the Danish government regarding the cartoon scandal). and why should we be other than snide? the plagiarizing momma's boy is only significant 'cause he killed children. you attribute merit 'cause you agree with his pov. if you so desire you may go ahead and empower the pathetic, cowardly and monstrous little dirt-bag who managed to create a forum for himself by means o' a body count. as for Gromnir, we will continue to be snide, derisive and dismissive. HA! Good Fun!

Where from? we already hinted where-from. is kinda ironic given the fact that the guy he plagiarized were at the other end o' the left-right continuum. the guy you admire simply changed the leftist language to righty. *snort* HA! Good Fun!

Sounds more like your average inferiority nutcase. Can't face life, dreams of the proverbial 15 minutes of fame (and a lifetime of infamy). Picked the easy way out to vent his impotent rage against everybody except himself. Coward through and through. He claims to be a part of an organization, nobody has claimed him. terrorist groups take credit for mayhem whether they is responsible or not. nobody is backing up the coward's claims. of course he claims to be part o' an organization. he knew he would be caught or killed... and that would end his significance, but if he were part o' an organization... bah. the most simple explanation is that he acted alone and is alone. until we see otherwise, am gonna stick with simple explanations. what we read o' his manifesto is nothing more than a mish-mash o' wacky conjecture and irate drivel. our impression thus far: is as if the unabomber's retarded younger brother took up the family trade. HA! Good Fun! ps you do realize that large portions o' the manifesto is plagiarized, right?

Incorrect. Self employed upper middle class and extremely educated. the 32 year old man with no formal education beyond high school, lives with his mother (didn't move out til he were 30... and then moved back home) and had a business go bankrupt is... what? perhaps your definitions is different than ours. you not need formal education to be educated, but access to a search engine or a book o' quotations is no substitute for traditional university rigour. so far we see no evidence that the slaughterer o' norwegian children is educated. as for being self-employed... well, am guessing that may be technical correct... on some level. is "amateur bomb maker" a profession? nevertheless, we will concede that it is too early to dismiss the izod bedecked momma's boy as insane. is far too convenient to label a person insane just 'cause they does something violent and stoopid... and pen a rambling manifesto. for the time being, Gromnir is gonna stick with Pathetic and Monstrous as our labels dujour. HA! Good Fun! ps damn. we forgot to include Cowardly. purposefully target children? yeah, that is cowardice. Pathetic. Monstrous. Cowardly. Here's the manifest so you can judge his educational level, or lack of it for yourself. His knowledge of the topics at hand does not seem to be based on quotations, but on lengthy research and I recognize many of the books on political theory he mentions. In that set of topics, I can say he has a good grasp of the material, regardless of the conclusions he draws from it. http://www.kevinislaughter.com/wp-content/...ndependence.pdf Cowardly? I'm not so sure. He did ask, and expect the death penalty for himself. This could be hypocrisy since he's not going to get it in Norway, but it does not suggest he picked the targets for lack of "harder" ones but because what he did would cause the maximum amount of pain. As someone who sees himself a "martyr", and has in advance "given up his life" he really could have struck anywhere and at anyone - therefore his choice of targets speaks to intent, not courage. am betting you didn't read the entire manifesto. neither did Gromnir, but nothing we read particularly impresses us. half the angsty teens who visit this board could pen something similar... but most would not choose to do so. and yeah, cowardly is how we would describe. the guy had a pathetic existence, so he targets kids who got the future he thought he were entitled to? *snort* which is taking more effort and courage; making something of yourself through hard work and determination, or setting off a bomb and slaughtering children? infamy is much easier to attain than is fame... hell, infamy is much easier to attain than a moderate comfortable existence. all you gotta do to be infamous is to give up on your on life, and take the lives o' others. HA! Good Fun!

Incorrect. Self employed upper middle class and extremely educated. the 32 year old man with no formal education beyond high school, lives with his mother (didn't move out til he were 30... and then moved back home) and had a business go bankrupt is... what? perhaps your definitions is different than ours. you not need formal education to be educated, but access to a search engine or a book o' quotations is no substitute for traditional university rigour. so far we see no evidence that the slaughterer o' norwegian children is educated. as for being self-employed... well, am guessing that may be technical correct... on some level. is "amateur bomb maker" a profession? nevertheless, we will concede that it is too early to dismiss the izod bedecked momma's boy as insane. is far too convenient to label a person insane just 'cause they does something violent and stoopid... and pen a rambling manifesto. for the time being, Gromnir is gonna stick with Pathetic and Monstrous as our labels dujour. HA! Good Fun! ps damn. we forgot to include Cowardly. purposefully target children? yeah, that is cowardice. Pathetic. Monstrous. Cowardly.

as far as we know, it is only traits that were to be alterable. applicable quote found "Like all New Vegas add-ons, Old World Blues raises the level cap by 5.[2] Also, the add-on offers new traits (and give you the opportunity to change your own traits if you've already chosen them) that will allow you to cap your level at 30. " respec o' traits would appear to have been planned to be added. HA! Good Fun!

Is that confirmed? I suspected it when , but it seemed to be trying to be very vague. Which makes me suspect that either I was reading too much into it or maybe the Courier isn't supposed to realize it, even if the player is supposed to. don't read too much into it. obsidian is agenda pushers on par with bio. after all, arcade is light in the loafers as well. HA! Good Fun!

blame on muslim terrorist is additional comforting 'cause is Them... is cultural, religious and even physical differences from the average euro or american. makes more sense when is one of Them who is responsible.

Is it? Carrying a gun and using it effectively to protect yourself in a situation like that aren't even close. As soon as the **** hits the fan, you'll probably get the shakes bad, missing all your shots -if you were lucky and your gun didn't jam straight away- and/or hit something or someone(!) else. That's assuming you weren't paralyzed by terror or just succumbed to the overwhelming impulse to GTFO. People in the police and military train for that sort of stuff for years and still fail to consistently keep a cool head under fire. Regular joes do even worse, packing or not, because we lack practice handling the violent hormonal discharge. Gun-toting pedestrians may have a mild deterrent effect, and hearing shots other than his own might have made the guy pause, but all things considered, I'd rather have just one out of control gunman. ... is one o' the first # post with which we largely agree. we did crime for the first ~2 years o' our career. read police reports reveals that tv is much misleading. is scary how many times an officer shoots 4-6 times at an armed person and miss +80%... and we is talking 'bout distances less than 15'. not matter if we is talking state, local or fed cops neither. perhaps swat and other groups fare better, but we didn't see many o' those. advice: buy a lousiville slugger and keep it by your nightstand if you is genuine wanting reliable in-home defense... or better yet, get a big dog. *chuckle* we also has seen defendants after they were pacified by a k-9 unit. am betting that most all such doggie chew toys would rather have been shot. aside people want to believe that terrorist organizations is responsible. as wackt as it sounds, blame terrorists is actually reassuring compared to the lone gunman scenario. governments can track and defend against terrorist groups, and terrorist groups has patterns o' behavior and agendas that makes their actions much more predictable than the lone gunman. one guy is disturbing. the knowledge that any one person with a little free time and the right/wrong mindset could be blowing up buildings and gunning down kids is... shocking. in a free society it is near impossible to defend 'gainst some person who wishes to create mayhem and does not care if they is caught or killed. any one guy. ps gun wielding defendants is far more likely to be shot during a crime... and they is ridiculously more likely to be injured in accidents involving their own firearm.

am a blues fan o' the nth degree, so we were pleased to see that the last two dlc offerings takes their names from classic blues songs. am just curious as to whether "mean old world" and "the lonsome road" actual gets played in the respective dlcs. am not particular liking clapton, but the following recording with duane allman might be our fave version. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1r1PrJ_rsk...707CA8FE59954EF also, am wondering what version o' the lonsome road will be utilized for the fo:nv dlc. gene austin is classic, but given the 1950's theme, sinatra might be more appropriate. regardless, am hopeful that the aforementioned great songs does more than inspire titles. HA! Good Fun!

we feel the same way.... though we obvious am coming at this from a complete different place. fallout gots funny dialogues and situations, but more than that, the entire setting, and everything in it, is based on the most outrageous 1950's b sci-fi movie cliches and tropes all collected into one post-apoc crpg. you got the seriousness o' the master and his super mutant army, without getting that the entire scenario is absurd? if Gromnir makes a play in which talking vegetables and fruits act out what amounts to Hamlet, and we keeps the fruits and vegetables stony-serious, is anybody gonna view as serious? a 6' tall talking and ambulatory avocado, even if he is reciting act 5, scene 1, is clearly absurd. our melancholy protagonist holds forth a gleaming bowl o' guacamole and speaks thus: "alas, poor yorrick! i knew him." the folks at nma would probable see as some sorta deadly serious commentary on the plight o' migrant farm workers. *snort* congratulations, in spite o' all the abject absurdity o' glowing green radioactive goop, robo brains, and enormous mutated mole rats, you still only see the serious. so, we can try to explain... HA! Good Fun! ANY setting can be absolutely absurd but work as serious pieces because of it's tone. Why does LoTR take itself so seriously? Its got WIZARDS, and ORCS. That is ridiculous! How dare it try to be emotional and serious! To discredit the entire work as for the lolz because of the setting is a bit heavy handed. this is part o' the problem. is NOT discrediting to observe that there is obvious (and at times heavy-handed) humor in fo. for some people it appears that the admission that the fallout setting were silly is somehow a condemnation... recognition o' humor in fo is a scathing rebuke. wrong. maybe this is the first hurdle. regardless, your comparison to tolkien is suspect. tolkien were creating an english mythology. kinda tough to pull off without elves and magic and such. the earliest lit always includes magic and monsters... beowulf, gilgamesh, etc. compare to super mutants and mutated mole rats? really? come now. that being said, if tolkien's elves and mages and orcs were as cartoony/campy as fo setting staples, then it not matter how dire the threat o' sauron, lotr would also be considered silly. HA! Good Fun!

we feel the same way.... though we obvious am coming at this from a complete different place. fallout gots funny dialogues and situations, but more than that, the entire setting, and everything in it, is based on the most outrageous 1950's b sci-fi movie cliches and tropes all collected into one post-apoc crpg. you got the seriousness o' the master and his super mutant army, without getting that the entire scenario is absurd? if Gromnir makes a play in which talking vegetables and fruits act out what amounts to Hamlet, and we keeps the fruits and vegetables stony-serious, is anybody gonna view as serious? a 6' tall talking and ambulatory avocado, even if he is reciting act 5, scene 1, is clearly absurd. our melancholy protagonist holds forth a gleaming bowl o' guacamole and speaks thus: "alas, poor yorrick! i knew him." the folks at nma would probable see as some sorta deadly serious commentary on the plight o' migrant farm workers. *snort* congratulations, in spite o' all the abject absurdity o' glowing green radioactive goop, robo brains, and enormous mutated mole rats, you still only see the serious. so, we can try to explain... HA! Good Fun!

I'm not a Cali attorney, but I'll state for the record that Gromnir has shown enough expertise in the past (particularly in the First Amendment area where he claims specialization) for me to trust his legal bona fides. And if he's being honest about his experience with a U.S. Attorney's Office, that's a pretty big deal. The USAOs do most of the in-court grunt work on behalf of the federal government-- prosecuting federal crimes and representing the United States when it is a party to civil litigation. Lastly, although I've done exactly zero criminal work (actually, exactly zero trial work at all), his arguments conform with my "just enough criminal law training to pass the Virginia Bar Exam" understanding. Undoubtedly, some criminal lawyers are better than others, and all else being equal, wealth tends to lead to being more likely to have an above-average criminal lawyer defending you. But being a high-profile defendant also means that prosecutors are more likely to focus closely on the case. It could be argued that fame cut the other way for folks like Martha Stewart or Plaxico Burress. Also, seriously? They're having their conference in Long Beach? were s'posed to be san diego, but following the gay and lesbian lawyer protests that gots press the last time the meeting were held in san diego, the cowards in-charge decided to switch to long beach... not that we typical attend such stuff. HA! Good Fun!

for krez, am not wanting to give out personal info, but we got a solution that should appease. received today via email... am posting link to the online viewable version. http://www.ieventreg.com/news/mobile_cats....b7f6d97cd6cd2ad any other cal lawyers wanna confirm they received this bit o' email nonsense today? should suffice in any event. also, am agreeing on the anecdote... but that were walsh, not Gromnir. HA! Good Fun!

anybody else notice a problem with the thread title, particularly in light o' the fact that the genesis post is from 2010? HA! Good Fun!

again, please be aware of the hypocrisy. *snort* and am suspecting that you has relied on authority literal hundreds if not thousands o' times in your life. med doctor visits. dentists. car mechanic. etc. nepenthe is correct when he is observing that everybody somehow believes they is an expert on law. go figure. oh, and once more, this ain't a question o' law, but if you not think lawyers, cops and judges gots special insights, then you kid yourself. regardless, we already pointed out a couple problems with walsh comments that is easily verifiable... if he wanna takes a quick look at the US Constitution, or use the logic krez seems to favor. HA! Good Fun! ps while orogun is incorrect that we questioned his character (we questioned your certainty in spite of seeming lack of familiarity and requested clarification) it not change the hypocrisy o' the demand in absence of a similar offering, eh?

according to the vault, you will be able to respec your traits. "Like all New Vegas add-ons, Old World Blues raises the level cap by 5.[2] Also, the add-on offers new traits (and give you the opportunity to change your own traits if you've already chosen them) that will allow you to cap your level at 30. " can this be confirmed? playing on xbox means we cannot simple download a level cap mod. HA! Good Fun!

superior authority means we need statistical data? ask a car mechanic with 15 years experience whether rich or poor people does a better job of maintaining their personal vehicles. when he gives an answer you not like, demand that he show you numbers as if the observation from the mechanic is less relevant without numbers or footnotes. does the mechanic likely keep personal records o' poor v. rich car owner maintenance habits? unlikely. nevertheless, as 'tween some clown who has watched top gear obsessively, and the mechanic with actual experience fixing cars, who is you gonna believe? as we said, the stuff you ask for is Not a legal question per se. you is asking for sociological data. guy in england who clear misunderstands delay tactics o' civil v. criminal and thinks wire-tap challenge is a significant benefit to wealthy defendants. not need to post stats to recognize that there is serious holes in your knowledge o' criminal proceedings in the US. HA! Good Fun!

No, it was not. God damnit. What the hell is wrong with these guys? fallout were funny. what has always confused Gromnir is the # o' hardcore fans who never got the funny. is like the folks who not see the funny in kill bill movies. in any event, owb sounds as if it is kinda a joke on the peoples who never got the funny o' fo. am perhaps curious enough to play. HA! Good Fun!

you got all the "interviews" from the 90's, no? why don't you post numbers? ask for what you can't produce yourself? and as already noted, the Sixth Amendment protections is a pretty substantial fact rebutting your claims. in any event, am not sure what kinda numbers you is looking for, or how you want generated. of defendants accused o' same crime in same jurisdictions, what is % of convictions for persons who earn in top 10% v. bottom 50%... something like that? no doubt there is studies done on such. you got westlaw access? maybe old aba journal articles. is probable a sociologist study as 'posed to a legal one. our career started with the US Attorney's Office before we moved onto first amendment stuff so we got got some personal experience in the field... enough to be able to sniff out nonsense such as the suggestion that wealthy defendants attempt to lengthen the process, or that rich defendants got an edge 'cause they can better fight wire-tap admissibility. but if you want something concrete, we can rundown the top ten most common categories o' crimes committed in the US... makes obvious why wire-tap is pretty rare. *shrug* tv is extreme misleading, and am not knowing who you interviewed in the 90's, but they gave you a distorted view o' reality. oj and michael jackson is needing an answer? HA! Good Fun!

I guess we should point out the difference between rich and wealthy? But point is that corporations and those within can drag cases for years. E.G: the ruling on sexual harassment suits against Walmarts employees and Halliburton (KBR) try not to confuse civil with criminal... is complete different situations. *shrug* no doubt orogun and walsh has impressive expertise regarding the US criminal legal system. perhaps walsh is actual a supreme court judge in ny (ny supreme court is actual the original jurisdiction level.) maybe orgun is a criminal defense attorney? is curious where all the certainty is coming from, eh? HA! Good Fun!

Most importantly a rich client will spin out a case for years if possible, angling for mistrils and every other sort of shenanigan. showing your ignorance? civil trial lawyer motto = Delay, Delay, Delay. is NOT the goal/aim for criminal defense. sixth amendment grants rights to speedy trial in large part to protect defendants from the burdens that accompany a lengthy trial. defense needs to show good cause to drag delay, and all judges look at such efforts with a jaundiced eye. *shrug* as already noted, the US system is skewed in favor of defendants. and as we already observed, rich defendants is more able to make use o' the procedural advantages put in place to benefit all defendants... is a largely unavoidable consequence. nevertheless, there is a long and storied history o' rich folks getting their arse handed to them in US courts. also, while juries frequent go easy on celebrity, they can have a complete opposite reaction to defendants seen as wealthy, particularly in cases that can be presented as resulting from greed. in both civil and criminal trials, juries frequent seem to wanna punish rich folks. is more than a few situations wherein a rich defendant is not gonna wanna have a jury trial. the segment o' society most likely to get stuck with the fuzzy end o' the lollipop in regards to mounting a criminal defense is the middle class. guilt or innocence not alter the fact that being a criminal defendant is expensive. public defenders sometimes gets portrayed as hacks in the media, but the reality is far from the truth. the typical public defender is a competent true-believer who has almost unparalleled experience. sadly, with recent cutbacks due to budget issues, many public defenders offices is now handling ridiculous caseloads. even so, is the middle class that gets screwed more than the poor. a rich and high-profile defendant also typical gets the best effort from the da. looking like you rolled-over for a rich defendant does not look good in the press, eh? say what you will 'bout marcia clark, but she was a very competent prosecutor with a long list o' homicide convictions in her pocket before the oj trial started. heck, she had faced robert shapiro before the oj case, and had come out on top in that encounter. yeah, all things being equal, Gromnir would rather be wealthy and able to afford the best legal representation possible. even so, am thinking that you folks who know the American legal system only through tv shows and newspaper articles got a strange and twisted notion 'bout the degree to which money will grease the wheels o' justice. HA! Good Fun! ps wire-tapping? now that there is hardly any mob cases, the number o' criminal cases with relevant wire-tap evidence is very small. dueling experts, on the other hand, is a factor to consider.