• Story alerts
  • Letter to Editor
  • Pin it

Brian Campbell, 50, will spend the next couple of years in prison for a July 12 hit-and-run accident in Carlsbad, at which time authorities said he had a blood alcohol level nearly two times the state’s legal limit of .08.

Campbell pleaded guilty July 27 to one felony count each of injury DUI and hit-and-run. Additionally, Campbell admitted an allegation that he has had two or more driving-under-the influence convictions within the past ten years.

Carlsbad police arrested Campbell, who was trapped in his car, after he'd driven it over an embankment into a driveway leading to an RV storage facility, Sgt. Paul Mendes stated in a press release. Campbell had been trying to elude police.

Before his arrest, Campbell struck a pedestrian at the corner of Maple Avenue and Carlsbad Boulevard. The victim, Megan Smith, was treated at the scene for her injuries and released. Campbell’s injuries were treated at Tri City Hospital.

This is Campbell’s fourth DUI conviction in the past six years. He pleaded guilty last July to one count each of misdemeanor DUI and hit-and-run outside of San Diego County, according to court documents. As part of his plea, the charges were reduced to misdemeanors. He was sentenced to 180 days in jail.

Additionally, he has two misdemeanor convictions for driving under the influence dating back to 2003 in Madera and San Bernardino Counties, court records state.

When Campbell is sentenced August 28, he will receive two years and eight months in prison, in accordance with his plea agreement.

  • Story alerts
  • Letter to Editor
  • Pin it

More from the web

Comments

SDaniels Aug. 5, 2009 @ 3:51 p.m.

"(and tell the children of the ghettos I said "Hi") [...]

Good day."

I'll assume that this typically bigoted repartee is your last, and that you will take my "issues" with you, and that we will happily part ways, unmolested, to blog as we see fit. Bye bye. :)

0

Josh Board Aug. 2, 2009 @ 9:08 p.m.

Since these debates, rickey, always seem to delve into racial things with liberal people...I like to use examples that involve the same race.

Justice Clarence Thomas. An African-American man. Born into such poor surroundings, and look what he became?

And, take the son of African-American football coach Tony Dungy. Born into a wealthy family. And he killed himself at age 18.

And, it's the same reason that statistics about adopted children, and how they don't do as well in school...even though they are in better households. It's because they are getting the biology passed on to them from parents that gave them up.

Yes, there are always exceptions. But when you are dealing with a majority in these things, it's funny that liberals and everyone else, keeps trying to make the same arguments that have been made for decades and decades.

0

David Dodd Aug. 6, 2009 @ 12:14 a.m.

What in the hell does any of this have to do with drunk driving?

0

rickeysays Aug. 6, 2009 @ 12:35 a.m.

Refried if you think this other stuff is irrelevent to the topic, how about this: I just saw the story about this bride of six months who was arrested for trying to hire someone to kill her husband. Yesterday I read about the guy who shot up the gym because he couldn't get a woman to date him. Am I the only one wishing these two could have hooked up?

0

David Dodd Aug. 6, 2009 @ 1:05 a.m.

Don't get me wrong, Rickey, it's not that I don't find the discussion fascinating, simply that it seems a tad esoteric to the title of the story. Even monkeys in the jungle binge on fermented fruit occasionally and get their drunk on. Fortunately, they haven't evolved to the point where they can drive quite yet.

0

SDaniels Aug. 3, 2009 @ 12:22 a.m.

"Since these debates, rickey, always seem to delve into racial things with liberal people...I like to use examples that involve the same race."

You're the only one bringing up race. rickey and I were talking about nature v. nurture, which happens to be a different subject, but one that yes, does allow you to bring up "Freakanomics," the only book you've read in maybe five years, for the 100th time.

Aren't you supposed to limit how many times per month you respond to threads other than your own?

0

Josh Board Aug. 3, 2009 @ 1:04 a.m.

For someone that's read so many books, it amazes me how stupid you are.

Thinking cops just running around shooting and beating people up.

Maybe instead of sitting home reading books, you should be out experiencing real life events.

I know, I know. You speak French. You know about Beckett. We're all impressed.

And you probably know all about how bus drivers treat minorities so much worse than everyone else and blah blah blah. You should write a book about all your idiotic takes on the world.

0

SDaniels Aug. 3, 2009 @ 1:54 a.m.

I don't care if you are impressed with me or not, Josh. You seem pretty perturbed about Beckett, about whom I made maybe two comments, and now you throw in the French, something you must have learned by reading my comments to someone else; not sure what your problem is with someone else knowing things.

"Thinking cops just running around shooting and beating people up."

That is your statement, not mine. Again, it's amazing how little you pick up from other people's arguments. I guess you just skim them.

0

SDaniels Aug. 3, 2009 @ 2:06 a.m.

Btw, rickey, to return to the topic at hand, and respond to your post: It isn't likely that we are all going to suddenly realize the obvious, as you call it, about nature v. nurture. Much of what we've learned from biology, about our similarities with animals, has begun to intersect with what we learn in the social sciences, about how much of what we perceive to be 'nature' evolves into and merges with culture. In other words, much of what we label nature turns out to be cultural construct.

As you say yourself, "People will believe what they choose to believe-what lines up with their world view."

0

thestoryteller Aug. 3, 2009 @ 2:08 a.m.

We do help people to some extent, although the cuts are slowing it down. I worked in probation with Prop. 36 offenders. These are people who get probation and drug treatment instead of going to jail. Many of them are so self-destructive, you can't help them. And the threat of going to jail does help. They were scared to death when they saw us. "Yes, Ma'm. No Ma'm. Anything you say Ma'm." They were so scared, they'd step aside when I walked down the hall.

I think Irish is a bit optimistic about people's wanting to help themselves. Many are their own worst enemy. I think throwing them in the slammer for a good, long time, making it as painful as possible, goes a long way.

0

PistolPete Aug. 6, 2009 @ 1:23 a.m.

LMAO!!!!!!!!!! And refried? This has NOTHING to do with the topic at hand. Not to pi$$ on your parade,but internet discussions tend to be ALOT like RL discussions. Meaning they go in all different directions. That and I'm a notorious threadjacker. I blame it on a bad childhood. :-P

0

David Dodd Aug. 6, 2009 @ 1:43 a.m.

Pete, you aren't urinating on my ostentatious processional of celebration, I'm simply baffled by how the thread has moved from a repeating drunk driver to a discussion on Darwin. And now, premarital sex. Weird.

0

SDaniels July 31, 2009 @ 1 a.m.

"You are making the mistake of believing you can "treat" people into being what they're not." rickeysays, I don't believe that irishwriter is proposing we attempt to change personality or the essence of a person, so much as providing more extensive treatment for the behavioral and psychological issues underlying substance abuse and attendant antisocial actions. Perhaps some people cannot change, especially those severely afflicted with personality disorders or mental illness, but the vast majority of people are very responsive to environment and social influence--the problem is actually how well, how insidiously social influence works--you won't admit to be a product of it yourself--all is nature, nature, nature.

Time and again, rickeysays, you apply a fatalist dotrinal view of the human animal, and ignore the role of the social, despite all of the evidence around you, and the fact that it very much makes you look as misled as a PistolPete. Why? It can't all lead back to your worries over what taxpayers might be talked into paying for, if we accept that education and treatment work for social betterment...

0

SDaniels July 31, 2009 @ 1:02 a.m.

Oops, meant "doctrinal." You get the picture.

0

rickeysays Aug. 3, 2009 @ 5:07 a.m.

Storyteller, I agree.

SD, to me culture is another misunderstood concept. "Nurturers" would argue people are a product of their culture, but the truth is, culture is a product of the people in it. Cultures are a reflection of the differences between different groups of people. Why is the culture of the Zulu different from the culture of Greece? Because the people are different. Why is the culture in the inner-city different from the culture in the suburbs? Same answer. It's all biology, just us monkeys doing what comes naturally.

0

rickeysays Aug. 6, 2009 @ 2:21 a.m.

Refried, sorry if I mictorated on your cavalcade.

0

David Dodd Aug. 6, 2009 @ 2:33 a.m.

Oh no, Ricky, my mobile promenade is quite intact (and dry). As I said, I am simply surprised at how this article arrived at genetic coding. I expect this sort of activity more from Josh's posts than anywhere else.

0

rickeysays Aug. 3, 2009 @ 5:41 a.m.

Sd, just came across this. Although nobody mentioned would dare entertain the notion that maybe it's biology, biology is why this might have a chance of actually working.

LA tries test to find kids likely to join gangs

By CHRISTINA HOAG, The Associated Press 1:00 p.m. August 2, 2009 Gang prevention cop Jeff Norat drives a bunch of sullen teens through the gang-riddled streets of a Los Angeles neighborhood, not because they're in trouble with the law – but so they'll stay out of it. "These kids are all at risk of joining gangs – look where they live," said Norat, motoring through Boyle Heights where some gangs are in their third generation. "But some kids don't." What prompts some kids to join gangs and their neighbors not to join is a question that has long baffled experts. City officials, who have made little headway denting the ranks of street gangs, now think they'll find the answer through a multiple-choice test. "If you could identify who those at-risk kids were, then you could microtarget them with resources," said Jeff Carr, director of the mayor's office on gang reduction and youth development. That premise marks a new strategy in the city's fight against gangs, which claim roughly 40,000 members in Los Angeles, making it the nation's gang capital. The city spends about $20 million a year on gang prevention and intervention. Until now, much of that funding has gone to what the anti-gang czar calls a "shotgun approach" to prevention – flooding gang-infested neighborhoods with social programs under the theory that any kid raised in these "hot zones" could wind up a tattooed gangbanger. But Carr points to research showing only about 15 percent of kids in a given neighborhood join gangs, according to University of Southern California social psychologist Malcolm Klein and others.

0

rickeysays Aug. 1, 2009 @ 8:02 p.m.

Sd you're exactly right about me. I don't believe in environmental causes. Everything is biology. We all are who we are, monkeys acting on our impulses. Go sit and watch the apes at the zoo for five minutes and tell me it doesn't look like most reality shows on TV. We humans give ourselves way to much credit for being thinking, rational animals. There's way to little thinking and rationality to go around. So yes, the occasional person can learn from "counseling", but most of us have to learn from our mistakes. As someone said, wisdom comes from the bad choices we make. But then some are incapable of even that much. I again reference Pete.

I could go on and on with the nature/nurture debate, and my contention that it's ALL nature, but the problem is, I can never prove it, because anything I point to as being biology someone else will argue is environment. So either it becomes obvious to you or it doesn't. People will believe what they choose to believe-what lines up with their world view.

0

Josh Board Aug. 5, 2009 @ 10:11 a.m.

Anecdotal situations you were involved in are always good to bring to the table, SD. It just seems when others do this, you disregard it.

My cousin married a man that mentored a minority kid. He started doing better in school. Until, after years and years of him being a big brother to this kid, he decided he'd rather run with this gang. And he decided to shoot a woman, just to show off to his gang buddies. Now he's doing life in prison.

Sure, it's only one situation, vs. your three success stories. Although, we aren't sure your stories ended in success, just because they made it to junior college. I hope they did.

0

PistolPete July 31, 2009 @ 10:02 a.m.

How many of you have a DUI under your belt? How many have two DUIs? Three DUIs?

0

SDaniels Aug. 4, 2009 @ 2:57 p.m.

rickey, no one who has spent any amount of time researching in the social sciences will propose to have resolved the paradox of biology vs. environmental and social influence. If they do, beware and be skeptical of their motives.

I'm sorry, but I don't get your conclusion: "Because the people are different."

Also, you'll have to explain to me what point you are making with the article. What I am getting from it: A certain percentage of kids in what they are calling "hot zone" neighborhoods join gangs, and there are attempts to understand factors influencing these kids's decisions. A multiple choice questionnaire used for measurement purposes is mentioned, but there are no specific details.

From my "real life" work with kids at risk of joining gangs and dropping out of high school, I concluded that home life and social influence played a huge part. If parents were available and attempted to be involved in their kids's lives and school, they were more likely to resist other influences in the neighborhood.

Those kids from 'broken' or abusive homes, with parental neglect due to drug use or other factors, such as extreme poverty forcing parents to be absent and work around the clock to pay rent and food bills, were like sitting ducks. This is where my 'mentoring' team came in, and tried to fill in where these parents left off or had no choice but to leave off.

We tutored and helped with homework, counseled, and hung out with the kids after school, partaking in 'healthy' social activities they liked, including dances and field trips. I did not compile any official data based on these experiences, and am speaking anecdotally, but can say that at least three kids on my caseload who were slotted in the 'most at risk' category eventually graduated, and made it to community college.

0

SDaniels Aug. 6, 2009 @ 2:32 p.m.

Btw, rickeysays, I'm surprised you haven't been quoting our homegrown "brain-is-all" theorists, namely the Churchlands, conducting their research right smack here at UCSD...

0

rickeysays Aug. 5, 2009 @ 4:19 a.m.

My point with the article was that if environment is what causes behavior, wouldn't more than 15% of kids end up in gangs? In a "gang infested area". The 15% who do, do so because they want to behave that way. So if they can identify some indicators to pick out the kids prone to this behavior (I'd start with a diagnosis of ADD) they are likely to have more success then the "shotgun" approach does. But honestly I'm still skeptical about how much success they can have making someone behave in a way other than they're driven to behave.

0

SDaniels July 31, 2009 @ 1:14 p.m.

I'm out of the survey, as I do not drive, Pete.

0

thestoryteller Aug. 5, 2009 @ 4:30 p.m.

SDaniels warned Josh about me? He warned me about her! She just doesn't like the fact that she's found people smarter than she is. She thinks that spewing a bunch of fancy BS makes a person smart. The fact is, there are all types of intelligence and she has few of them.

0

SDaniels Aug. 5, 2009 @ 4:33 p.m.

Yes, Mindy. I'm sure you recall harassing a certain blogger through the Reader's email function. Let's not get into that. I'm not any more interested in your opinion of me than you are likely of mine. Let's go about our business, as Josh said, and be adults about it.

0

PistolPete July 31, 2009 @ 6:28 p.m.

I'm not critisizing anyone on here personally,but if anyone hasn't gotten a DUI or even driven drunk,your opinion doesn't matter. I've had two DUIs. The first one was on amatuer night almost one month before my 22nd birthday. 2nd was 6 months after I got my license back from the 1st. I was 28 years old. The first DUI cost me $250.00 2nd one hasn't been resolved. I did however get and pay two tickets and a $75 bill to tow my truck.

Now here's where the State of Wisconsin f--ked me. I recieved a ticket for Driving While Intoxicated(DWI/DUI). I'm ok with that. I broke the law and was wrong for doing so. The other ticket was for blowing past a .08 Both were $250.00 each. How in the f--k is it legal to basically charge someone with the same exact crime twice? If I'm driving while intoxicated,I'm obviously past .08 or I wouldn't have recieved the first ticket. I'm on the fence regarding the DUI laws themselves. Yes,it's good to get drunks off the street. I understand that. But why charge people with the same crime twice? DUI laws are about $$$ for the state/Feds and that's ALL they're made for. Protect the public? Sounds all good in theory but it's bulls--t that the public eats up like turkey on Thanksgiving.

I paid the $575.00 and spoke with a lawyer. He basically said that because it was a federal DUI,the prosecuter and judge would treat it as attempted manslaughter. WTF????? If I push getting my license back once again,I'm facing a MINIMUM of a year in jail AND a $10,000 fine. Again...WTF??????

0

PistolPete July 31, 2009 @ 6:30 p.m.

My probationary WI license is hereby revoked BTW. I think I've driven a few times since fall of 2004.

0

PistolPete Aug. 6, 2009 @ 10:25 a.m.

LMAO!!! My GF and I discussed this further we've come to the conclusion that she's right and I'm right seeing as evolution has many Missing Links. And now for something completely different....

0

SDaniels Aug. 5, 2009 @ 12:33 p.m.

re: #26: Josh, you have no idea what you're talking about, and clearly have no reason to be here other than to troll me--why not call off your dog (Mindy), loosen your own jaws from my skirt, and attend to discussions on your own threads? Your pal Pete is probably missing you.

re: #25: That is not necessarily true, rickeysays. You are assuming again that should environmental influence hold any kind of sway, that everyone is automatically affected the same way--instead of bio-robots, they are now culture-robots. Part of anyone's experience in this life is the fact that events shift and change individually; people respond differently at different moments of their lives, depending on the stress loads and available coping skills--right down to the very moment. We are an unpredictable lot, and saying that you can pinpoint how kids are going to deal with a given set of factors or variables is to say that you have isolated some "essence" of human nature, and that you know how to control all variables of every experiences.

A diagnosis of ADD can be helpful if vetted carefully, but it is quite notoriously overapplied, as studies will show. In fact, with the amount of time you spend on this topic I am surprised you'd hold on to the ADD as reliable.

Be sure to write a long response, rickey, to give me time to recover from this carpal tunnel--and to develop a little ADD, if it is the only path to free choice :)

0

ChuckMac619 July 29, 2009 @ 4:31 p.m.

What an idiot ! Lock that fool up & throw away the key ! Morons like this shouldnt be allowed to live , let alone be on the streets. I hope his butt gets pounded while hes locked up , itll give him something to think about when he gets out ! Hope he's got his KY handy !

0

Visduh July 29, 2009 @ 9:17 p.m.

At least he didn't kill anyone. Most of the time, these repeat drunk drivers keep offending until they kill. THEN the law comes down hard on them. I'm not counting on a prison sentence making him see the error of his ways, but at least for two years and eight months he won't be driving. Sadly, he's too young to die of old age in the joint.

0

poff July 30, 2009 @ 7:36 a.m.

This is a complete failure of our justice system. How was this guy not already in prison? Not only is it his 4th DUI but it is his 2nd DUI with hit & run.

0

irishwriter July 30, 2009 @ 7:51 a.m.

After reading this article about yet another drunk driver who was “let off” too many times by the judicial system and finally made one stick with a felony hit-n-and-run, I couldn’t help but think that we’re going about this all wrong. Issuing jail time is another case of treating the symptoms and not the underlying cause of a problem.

When someone continues to tempt fate after so many warnings and near misses, their problem that is the cause of the incidents is inherently psychological and not simply a case of bad behavior.

Why aren’t we treating the inadequacies, insecurities, or other demon the person is dealing with, to help them eliminate or at least control, the excess of their drinking or dependence on other illegal substances that cause aberrant behavior?

Sending them to a generic abuse program is not enough—they're generally not equipped to delve into the deep-seated issues of “problem drinkers,” who use alcohol as a crutch, rather than an aide in relaxation or for light enjoyment.

When alcohol or drugs go beyond pleasure, to necessity, it’s acting as a substitute for facing a myriad of societal ills—a slap on the wrist won’t fix it—and jail time, with REAL bad guys will do nothing but exacerbate the problem.

But we’re a society built on Easy Street—it’s easier to just throw them in jail and forget about them. There are many “social drinkers” in the world and contrary to the beliefs of many, this can happen to any one of us. It just takes a fateful night of bad judgment and really bad luck.

In the meantime, it’s guys (and gals) like this who not only are responsible for many injuries and deaths of others (and themselves), but spoil the fun for responsible drinkers.

Should there be punishment? Of course. But it shouldn’t ruin the rest of their lives … and affect ours. Help them fix the problem.

0

PistolPete July 30, 2009 @ 11:02 a.m.

We need to tell the Feds to get f--ked and increase the BAC back to .10 or higher.

0

poff July 30, 2009 @ 1:40 p.m.

BAC of .10? The guy hit and ran at .08. I don't care if he blew .02, he still hit and ran. I drink a s-load but I don't drink and drive.

0

PistolPete July 30, 2009 @ 2:59 p.m.

Like Joe Walsh once sang:"I lost my license,now I don't drive". My last DUI was a Federal DUI. I blew a .154 and the ONLY reason the MPs stopped me was because I was speeding. I'm 275lbs,about 5'9" and have been drinking since I was 10 years old. I'm now 33. You do the math. .154 to me at that time was about .08 to a"normal"person. The BAC thresh hold that the Feds(and now all 50 states I believe)use is f--ked. Someone who drinks maybe a beer or a glass of wine every few days is going to EASILY blow a .08 if stopped if he/she has consumed a couple of drinks at dinner. Tolerance. Tolerance. Tolerance. It ALL about the tolerance.

We're NEVER going to solve the drunk driving problem. Ever. It's here to stay. As someone who could've easily killed someone while drunk driving,it's a problem that I understand. Most non-drinkers and tee-totalers will never understand it so all they can do is scream bloody murder to MADD and the government from the rooftops when someone is killed by a drunk driver. It solves nothing. No amount of discussion on this subject will solve anything. Do I advocate getting wasted and driving? No f--kin' way. But it happens alot more than the average American with his head up his a$$ will ever comprehend. It's a problem. That will NEVER go away.

Like Sam Kinison once said(ironically later in his life):"What are we going to do? Take the bus? F--k that! Can you see that? Bus pass please."

0

rickeysays July 31, 2009 @ 12:45 a.m.

Irish: "There are many “social drinkers” in the world and contrary to the beliefs of many, this can happen to any one of us. It just takes a fateful night of bad judgment and really bad luck." Once maybe. That's not the case here. You are making the mistake of believing you can "treat" people into being what they're not. You can't. What is a counselor going to tell this guy that he doesn't already know? He is obviously incapable of changing. All we can do as a society is protect ourselves from him. Like Pete. He brags about what a moron he is. Is he going to change?

0

Josh Board Aug. 5, 2009 @ 3:27 p.m.

SD...you've got some issues. Mindy is hardly my dog. She's someone that posts here, and often makes a lot more sense than you do. Of course, her life experiences you don't take into account. Only your own seem to matter. And when you're proven wrong in such things, you just move on to something else. When Mindy first started posting on threads I've mine, you felt the need to warn me about her. I still have no clue what that was all about. Sometimes her and I agree, sometimes we don't. But it's certainly a lot more civil than anything with you ever is.

And what is your big deal with Pete? He's no more annoying than a poster like Spliff Adamz, but you didn't have a problem with him. Oh wait...let me guess why that may be.

Speaking of Pete, why have you told other people on the boards that they shouldn't agree with Pete on topics. Is this how you win debates? Is a person that engages in these types of tactics, supposed to have ANY credibility in anything else they ever bring up? Like the previous story about the 3 people that are now in college. Who knows what we can believe with you, because if people on these boards side with someone you don't like (Pete, for example), you send them messages that you don't want to have anything to do with them.

That's real mature. Instead of letting adults have their own opinions; sometimes that means they might agree with crazy people. They might sometimes agree with you, or disagree...but we can all be adults and have discussion on it.

Instead of sending threatening messages to people, getting them to side with you.

Good day.

(and tell the children of the ghettos I said "Hi")

0

rickeysays Aug. 5, 2009 @ 4:49 p.m.

People are their biology, another example:

NEW YORK (AP) -- The American Psychological Association declared Wednesday that mental health professionals should not tell gay clients they can become straight through therapy or other treatments.

Instead, the APA urged therapists to consider multiple options - that could range from celibacy to switching churches - for helping clients whose sexual orientation and religious faith conflict.

In a resolution adopted on a 125-to-4 vote by the APA's governing council, and in a comprehensive report based on two years of research, the 150,000-member association put itself firmly on record in opposition of so-called "reparative therapy" which seeks to change sexual orientation.

No solid evidence exists that such change is likely, says the report, and some research suggests that efforts to produce change could be harmful, inducing depression and suicidal tendencies.

"There's no evidence to say that change therapies work, but these vulnerable people are tempted to try them, and when they don't work, they feel doubly terrified," Glassgold said. "You should be honest with people and say, 'This is not likely to change your sexual orientation, but we can help explore what options you have.'"

0

PistolPete Aug. 5, 2009 @ 9:48 p.m.

First off,there's nobody I"hate"on these boards,including Spliff. Some may hate me and that's fine. I tried to get hated on most boards I visit. If I'm liked,I'm obviously toeing the line of status quo and that's not how I am. Chances are,if someone hates me because of what I write,I've made them think too much about their mediocrity and they hates themselves for not rocking the boat enough. I'm just as likely to call you a kunt,dick or faggot in person and then buy you a beer. I say the things most sheeple are afraid to say. I have nothing to lose anyway.

Second,I'm alot more intelligent than Spliff. I've spent my life learning new things. Just tonight before taking a short nap,my GF and I were arguing over the Missing Link. She's college educated. I'm not. She says that she learned in college that the ML had to do with dinosaurs and their relationship with birds and crodiles or alligators. I was led to believe that the ML had to do with sasquatch and his relationship with apes and humans. As soon I'm off this site,I'll google and we'll see who is right. If I'm wrong,I'll be more than glad to tell her that I'm wrong. Admitting you're isn't a sign of weakness. It's a sign of wisdom.

0

PistolPete Aug. 5, 2009 @ 10:45 p.m.

OK. I did a Google search with no evidence in either direction. However,I did go to the dinosaur wikipedia page and noticed that they talked about birds and crocodiles/alligators with the evolution of dinosaurs. I'm not SAYING that my GF is wrong but I don't THINK she's right either. I say this only because of the term Missing Link itself. Missing means something in question hasn't been discovered yet. We KNOW that dinosaurs existed because we've discovered their bones. I did read on another page however that the term"Missing Link"has been used before the modern use of evolutionary theory according to Darwin. That alone speaks volumes.

Maybe someone wants to clear this debate up with some useful information.

0

rickeysays Aug. 5, 2009 @ 11:51 p.m.

You're both right.

Transitional fossils (popularly termed missing links) are the fossilized remains of intermediary forms of life that illustrate an evolutionary transition. They can be identified by their retention of certain primitive (plesiomorphic) traits in comparison with their more derived relatives, as they are defined in the study of cladistics. Numerous examples exist, including those of primates and early humans.

According to modern evolutionary theory, all populations of organisms are in transition. Therefore, a "transitional form" is a human construct of a selected form that vividly represents a particular evolutionary stage, as recognized in hindsight. Contemporary "transitional" forms may be called "living fossils", but on a cladogram representing the historical divergences of life-forms, a "transitional fossil" will represent an organism at the point where individual lineages (clades) diverge.

In 1859, when Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species was first published, the fossil record was poorly known, and Darwin described the lack of transitional fossils as "the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory", but explained it by the extreme imperfection of the geological record.[1] He noted the limited collections available at that time, but described the available information as showing patterns which followed from his theory of descent with modification through natural selection.[2] Indeed, Archaeopteryx was discovered just two years later, in 1861, and represents a classic transitional form between dinosaurs and birds. Many more transitional fossils have been discovered since then and it is now considered that there is abundant evidence of how all the major groups of animals are related, much of it in the form of transitional fossils.[3]

The idea of a "missing link" between humans and so-called "lower" animals remains lodged in the public imagination. The concept was fuelled by the discovery of Australopithecus africanus (Taung Child), Java Man, Homo erectus, Sinanthropus pekinensis (Peking Man) and other Hominina fossils.

0

rickeysays Aug. 6, 2009 @ 1:11 a.m.

Now to beat this dead horse just a little more, here's more evidence that people can't be counseled out of following their impulses (I couldn't resist):

To the surprise of few outside the rarefied world of the Religious Right, it has emerged that George W Bush’s “abstinence only” policies led directly to a rise in teenage pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases.

The Centres for Disease Control (CDC) says that after years of falling rates, teen pregnancies and STDs started rising after Bush was re-elected in 2005.

According to the CDC, birth rates among teenagers aged 15 or older had been in decline since 1991 but rose sharply in more than half of American states after 2005. The number of teenage girls with syphilis had risen by nearly half after a big decrease, while a 20-year fall in the gonorrhea infection rate was being reversed. AIDS cases in adolescent boys had nearly doubled.

The CDC says southern states (the Bible Belt) tend to have the highest rates of teenage pregnancy and STDs. In addition, about 16,000 pregnancies were reported among girls aged 10-14 in 2004 and a similar number of young people in the age group reported having a sexually transmitted disease.

Some of the statistics the CDC report reveals:

•75% of teens will have sex prior to their 20th birthday. •The teenage birth rate in the US is the highest in the developed world. •1/3 of youths have not received any instruction on methods of birth control before the age of 18. The number of teen pregnancies is double in areas where abstinence is the only method of birth control taught as opposed to areas where there is comprehensive sex education and condoms are handed out. The organisation Planned Parenthood said the report was alarming and that teenagers needed “medically accurate, age-appropriate, comprehensive sex education”.

However, religious proponents of the “abstinence-only” policies still insist that the reason for the rise is because their policies were not promoted hard enough..

0

rickeysays Aug. 6, 2009 @ 2:19 a.m.

Not convinced yet?

Birds have been observed reconstructing cultural information in complete isolation, meaning that culture can be genetically encoded.

Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory scientists isolated a Zebra Finch, preventing it from learning the songs of its parents (and probably pissing off a bunch of PETA activists). These finches are known to learn their song from elder male relatives, which is why the scientists were surprised to see the same songs emerge from a colony of these utterly isolated birds.

They didn't get it right immediately. The first isolated bird, cut off from its culture, emitted a cacophonous screeching about as melodious as nails being dragged down a pieces of broken blackboard which were, in turn, being dragged down an even larger blackboard. It even tried to teach its kids the same, but they obviously thought "that sucks" (in bird) and made a few improvements. After four generations, the original finch songs reappeared, meaning that either

a) Cultural information can be genetically encoded or b) Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory has embarrassingly bad sound insulation. We're going to assume a) for now.

The implications are enormous: the encoded information wasn't immediately available like some kind of genetic database, but as the baby birds learned and improved what they saw they were all along being guided by built-in information. At every point, if you'll forgive the outrageous anthropomorphization, they "thought" they were working it out for themselves while dancing to the genetic tune. That's the kind of thing that would make you think very seriously about free will.

Even better, imagine the interactions of such genetically-tuned tendencies with a world full of things survival never had to deal with. The evolutionary importance of mating songs can't be overstated, so such information being backed up in every single cell is understandable. But what about innate tendencies like wanting to be popular or successful, interacting with technologies which can send your image far further than our cave-dwelling originators could ever imagine?

That could lead to people doing the stupidest, most self-destructive things just for the chance of a few minutes of fame and, oh, hang on. YouTube and Reality TV just made a lot more sense to us. And that's scary.

0

SDaniels Aug. 6, 2009 @ 2:21 p.m.

rickeysays, I hope you are just cutting and pasting, and saving your wrist tendons :)

re: #32: The APA is absolutely going to advise against trying to change a person's sexual orientation. However, the APA would shake its collective head gravely at your reductive conclusion, and odd use of this guideline to assume that people are nothing but their biology. Have you searched any current contents for research conducted by APA associates? Sit down with any psychiatrist, and s/he will fill you in. Same goes for the fields of sociology and anthropology, as I have mentioned.

There is indeed a "missing link" or two here. Your account of the rise in teen sexual activity and pregnancies is accurate, and the actions of the recent administration, as well as some ongoing campaigns on the part of the Catholic church have been misled and naïve to say the least, deluded and repressed as they are about human sexuality and development. Certainly, the sexual drive is a strong one, and can override any available information about sexually communicable diseases. Teens are motivated by combination of developmental exploration and pushing limits, as well as biological drive; and many have not yet learned to control their sexual drives, or anticipate the consequences of their actions. Again, we cannot jump from the premise that sexual orientation and sexual drive equates an inability on the part of human beings to modify or rethink behavior.

0

rickeysays Aug. 7, 2009 @ 3:45 a.m.

Don't know what the "churchlands" are, give me a link or something. And yes, I'm a big fan of the cut and paste, especially when real life makes my case so much more effectively than I could. To summarize: We're all monkeys following our impulses. Criminals. Homosexuals. Horny teens.

0

SDaniels Aug. 8, 2009 @ 12:43 p.m.

Rickeysays, that summary is extremely ignorant and pointless. I’m going to help you beef up your weak arguments and up your game, girlfriend! You'll probably thank me eternally for leading you to your true life as an eliminative materialist.

If you are still teaching btw, you know you should be able to access better databases than Wiki, but feel free to request anything of me if you cannot--I still have access to everything via NYU. Here goes!

A discussion format is used here, in this online journal about the philosophy of the mind and brain, including folks from cog sci and the neurosciences, and very importantly—philosophy as it intersects with them.. Some commenters appear to be undergrads, but all in all, a useful site:

http://philosophyofbrains.com/2008/02/09/when-was-ignorance-of-neuroscience-ok.aspx

Overview of divisions and categories of American philosophical thought; includes the Churchlands:

Because you most often use ‘evidence’ concerning tests to measure cognition and/or intelligence: Understanding the specific fields you need in order to argue against “social influence” from a philosophical and physiological standpoint:

Finally, the Churchlands’ own brand of philosophy:

0

rickeysays Aug. 9, 2009 @ 2:14 a.m.

God what a load of crap! Most philosophical conversation strikes me about equivelent to inmates in the asylum hurling feces against the wall to see what kind of patterns it makes. If you're comparing me to these guys you haven't understood what I've said at all. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. I don't think you're capable of hearing what I'm saying. Not because you're not smart, but because you're trapped in your world-view. You don't lack intelligence, just rationality.

As you consider yourself an academic, I'll refer you to a very interesting book that might broaden your horizons. "Our Inner Ape" by Frans De Waal. Give it a read.

0

SDaniels Aug. 9, 2009 @ 1:50 p.m.

I don't really consider myself an academic anymore, rickeysays, so you aren't hurting my feelings. It is interesting that you seem to have an outdated idea of what philosophy "is" today, and what fields (from which you have been drawing copiously, albeit from third-hand media, and often without discernible pattern) intersect with it.

If brain science does not interest a person who constantly reduces human nature to that of apes, welp, I tried to help.

Btw, philosopher/artist Antonin Artaud threw crap at a wall; so did de Sade. As gringo might say, "This is what happens." Doesn't mean all branches of philosophy can be again reduced to small brown piles. Your disdain is a bit 'striking' in itself, no? Perhaps because you content yourself with throwing randomly culled crap at a page, and feel you've convinced enough people to buy it?

0

SDaniels Aug. 9, 2009 @ 2:01 p.m.

rickey, thanks for the recommend, though I would caution against resting your own world-view on one view from a primatologist.

We need multiple fields of study--would you not agree? Or is that me spouting off with no rationality again? It's funny how quickly you accuse me of a lack of rationality, when my 'world-view' is so much more expansive, and contains so much more than yours. The day I hang my 'world-view' on a single text, I'll have gone senile.

0

Russ Lewis Aug. 9, 2009 @ 2:37 p.m.

By the way, SD, Swift was another author who had an extraordinary fascination with feces. Dunno that the Marquis actually hurled it at anything though, if you meant that literally.

0

SDaniels Aug. 9, 2009 @ 2:49 p.m.

russl, de Sade was imprisoned long enough to compose soliloquies with, to, about, and upon feces. See the 29th day or so onward of "120 Days of Sodom"--if you dare. It's pretty disturbing, but necessary to understanding the mechanist desires and conceptions of the universe of his era.

0

SDaniels Aug. 9, 2009 @ 2:51 p.m.

PS: Looking forward to your fave quote from Swift, russl :)

0

Russ Lewis Aug. 9, 2009 @ 4:29 p.m.

I read the whole thing 25 years ago, in college. I wasn't really a fan of Swift; I was more of a Sadean man. Watch Pasolini's adaptation Salo, or the 120 Days of Sodom...if you dare. It used to come to the Ken now and then, and it is out on video. Great for those romantic evenings.

0

SDaniels Aug. 9, 2009 @ 6:12 p.m.

"Great for those romantic evenings." Ha, ha! Actually, one of my students presented this film once in a class, analyzing the construction of specific scenes. Unfortunately, some of his less openminded colleagues asked me if they could leave the room. Their loss.

Pasolini had a fabulous way with light and color, as well as narrative, didn't he? A senseless death...

0

Duhbya Aug. 10, 2009 @ 4:34 a.m.

45: "My GF and I discussed...."

Those dolls can talk now??? Amazing!

0

PistolPete Aug. 10, 2009 @ 8:03 p.m.

HA! You missed your calling in life Duhbya.

0

Duhbya Aug. 11, 2009 @ 6:16 a.m.

Never too late to begin anew, right? ;>)

0

SDaniels Aug. 11, 2009 @ 11:57 p.m.

Unless you are a convicted armed robber, known for threatening women and people of color with homicide. Fair to say that's all pretty hard to start over from--hey rickeysays, surely you and de Waal agree with that?

0

rickeysays Aug. 12, 2009 @ 1:52 a.m.

It's never too late to start over, but most people are incapable. We were born under the apple tree, and that apple is just TOO HARD TO RESIST.

0

PistolPete Aug. 12, 2009 @ 2:06 a.m.

LOL! I was wrong about you rickeysays. I just re-read what I wrote about you in Josh's blog on homelessness. You were correct considering what I wrote was basically hypocritical of the exact statement I first wrote on that blog. As for SDaniels,f--k her. Just tonight I left a website that I had been going to for 2 1/2 years because of censorship. I even thought of not coming back to this one. I'm all for individual rights when it comes to website ownership. What I don't understand is,how can an owner who censors posts be taken seriously? I don't get it. I have an open forum on MySpace with one rule:There are no rules. If two adults want to sit there and call each other stinky,poopy doodyheads,what the f--k do I care? Spammers are welcomed because it gives us something to make fun of in the off-season(It's a Packers group,BTW).

I've made SDaniels rethink her stance on certain things and she's feelin' uncomfortable with it. I read awhile ago where I do believe it was you that said that she thinks she's superior to us because of our education. Like I said before,I'm not just book smart,I'm street savy as well.

0

Josh Board Aug. 12, 2009 @ 10:35 a.m.

Well Pete...I don't think SDaniels rethinks her stance on things. It's one of the things that makes me think less of her intelligence.

But you have to agree, there are times censorship is needed, no?

And speaking of the Packers, Aaron Rodgers was my QB last year in fantasy football. I hope to get him again this year.

0

PistolPete Aug. 12, 2009 @ 12:22 p.m.

There is NEVER a good time for censorship. I'm not sure if I'll do FF this year. Last year was my first year and I wasn't really impressed.

0

David Dodd Aug. 12, 2009 @ 1 p.m.

Pete, you'll find that most comments are removed not because of a complaint, but because comments are monitored and removed when deemed inappropriate. Or childish and beneath sophomoric. Or inflammatory. Attempting to insult someone by accusing them of having a sexual preference that you find unappealing is grade school playground material.

0

SurfPuppy619 Aug. 12, 2009 @ 4:43 p.m.

...you'll find that most comments are removed not because of a complaint, but because comments are... childish and beneath sophomoric....

By refriedgringo

That pretty much covers 90% of my comments......

0

Josh Board Aug. 12, 2009 @ 5:01 p.m.

Nothing wrong with it, storyteller. Nothing at all : - )-

Pete, can't you just make your points in a way that sounds less juvenile? It hurts your credibility?

The thing is...you probably have more common sense than SDaniels. But because she's college educated and likes to use the big words she knows, she probably attracts more attention at first.

You come across like a Rush Limbaugh...loud and bombastic, and it turns people off.

On all the various issues I've seen you both comment on, it seems you're both batting about .500.

0

SurfPuppy619 Aug. 12, 2009 @ 5:27 p.m.

No one should be leveling personal attacks in a malicious manner. That drives people away from posting and the website-that is not good for the site or the people involved.

I tease people in a joking manner, but never to inflict malicious hurt on a person.

0

PistolPete Aug. 12, 2009 @ 12:27 p.m.

I see SDaniels reported my post where I call her a lesbian. ;-D Just remember SDaniels,censorship is a two way street. If I get kicked off of here,do you really think I'll care. The Reader is but one in a million local websites.

0

Russ Lewis Aug. 12, 2009 @ 9:22 p.m.

"I'm all for individual rights when it comes to website ownership. What I don't understand is,how can an owner who censors posts be taken seriously?" Simple, Pete. Publishers and website owners don't like to get sued. It's expensive. Let's say I go on a website forum like this one and say that Pistol Pete is a drug-dealing child molester who cheats on his taxes. That's libel, and the PUBLISHER can get sued for libel because I posted that comment. It's crazy, but that's how it works. So that's probably why you see comments disappear from here sometimes.

0

PistolPete Aug. 12, 2009 @ 9:35 p.m.

I just called her a lesbo because of all the s--t she posts against me. You guys are right. I AM better than that. Thank you for showing me the error of my ways.

In other news,the Chargeless got their Saturday game blacked out! WOOOOOO! :-D

0

thestoryteller Aug. 12, 2009 @ 9:46 p.m.

I have known some great gay people, my fake dad included,and Sdaniels is in no way in their league. She should be flattered to be mistaken for one of them.

For the record, Refried harrassed me all over the website, and I sent him an email demanding that he leave me alone or I'd go to the authorities. SDaniels is a small, pathetic, ineffectual person, not to mention childish.

0

SDaniels Aug. 13, 2009 @ 1:57 a.m.

"I see SDaniels reported my post where I call her a lesbian. ;-D Just remember SDaniels,censorship is a two way street."

Uh, wrong again. I have never bothered to report a single posting, and have no problem with someone calling me a lesbian, as I--unlike all your friends on the playground--do not consider it a derogatory term.

The rest is too laughable to answer, though I'll state for the record that YOU have never given me--or likely anyone--adequate cause to rethink a position. I love the way you people try to scratch out degraded personality traits for others, rather than provide yes--intelligent--content. I have no cause to resort to name calling. You have already provided your actual resume and CV for us, amidst all the pawing and snorting.

Oh, and Josh: You were going to leave me and my "big words" alone. What happened to that resolve? Gone the way of your "journalistic integrity?"

0

rickeysays Aug. 13, 2009 @ 2:11 a.m.

Pete, defend yourself! Tell russl you NEVER cheated on your taxes!

0

David Dodd Aug. 13, 2009 @ 2:46 a.m.

"For the record, Refried harrassed me all over the website, and I sent him an email demanding that he leave me alone or I'd go to the authorities."

Wow, are you delusional. Let's figure out what really happened here...

First, you won the blogging contest for the month of whatever. Next, someone left a comment on your entry that was not complimentary. Next, I defended you (and holy crap do I ever regret that), simply based on the fact that you made an effort to write something. Next, you proceeded in insulting anyone who questioned your content by suggesting that because you were some sort of an incredibly great writer, that they would be better off selling cars. Next, I called you a jerk, because, well you acted like a jerk. Next, you contacted the Reader and asked for my comments to be removed. Next, they refused. Next, you got your little feelings hurt, so you blasted some threatening private messages at me (which, I will, at whatever point I want to, post in here). Next, I told you in response to grow up. Next, you threatened to call the police and send them to the Reader (I literally laughed so hard I thought I would pee my pants when I read that). Next, I reminded you that all private messages are on the servers of the Reader website, so you are basically going to out yourself as a delusional psychotic idiot if you decided to do that. Next, you shut the hell up, which was the smartest thing you've done since I've been on this site.

Then, the Reader was gracious enough to find one of my entries a winner (and, Reader, thank you very much, I truly appreciate it, it was awesome of you guys). Then, you sent me another nasty private note claiming not only that I was a horrible writer, they only awarded me the prize that month to get back at you.

Want me to post the messages, Mindy? Or do you want to shut the hell up and act like an adult? Or do you want to continue with the delusional lies? Your choice.

0

magicsfive Aug. 13, 2009 @ 7:30 a.m.

yes refried please PLEASE do post it, although i was around for all that and remember every single thing she said. i will admit that at some points i had some things to say to mindy, (and girl, you need help, you should seek it.)

0

PistolPete Aug. 13, 2009 @ 9:43 a.m.

Not only do I cheat on my taxes,I encourage every patriotic American to do it as well. Has anyone REALLY thought long and hard where their hard earned money is going? The Department of Streets & Sanitation is a mere pittance.

0

PistolPete Aug. 13, 2009 @ 9:47 a.m.

Oh and SDaniels,I'm no John Dillinger no matter what you think of me. I robbed that Hardee's for money to buy a gun to put a bullet in the brain of the man who raped me when I was 13. I was 23 when I did it. After living with a shameful secret for 10 years,I went a little nuts. So before you accuse me,take a look at yourself.....

0

SDaniels Aug. 13, 2009 @ 1:46 p.m.

I'm very very sorry to hear that you were abused as a child, Pete, but it does not excuse abuse of others yourself now that you are an adult. There is no excuse to take your childhood issues out on others.

Anyone would recommend that you seek counseling rather than hold a gun to someone else's head, as you have admitted to doing physically, or make homicidal or ugly racist threats, as you have done on these blogs. Many of us were abused as children, and do not make the choice to perpetrate violence on others. Instead, we choose to seek counseling, and become more knowledgeable about human nature; we do this to stop the cycle of violence, and better understand ourselves. Remember, every human life is presumably as precious as your own, and everyone deserves to live.

0

PistolPete Aug. 13, 2009 @ 1:55 p.m.

Sorry SDaniels. Your brother Jack in my therapist ;-D. You say I'm mysoginstic. I say I refuse to take s--t from women who like to play head games. You say I'm a criminal. I say that I've made serious errors in judgement while growing up. You say I've made ugly,racist threats. I say that some can interpret my words as being racist,even though in reality,they're not. I've NEVER threatened anyone who's a minority with physical violence. Calling someone a ni--er isn't the same as lynching them. I grew up old school where epitaphs were commonplace and nobody bitched about them. We've become too soft,too bleeding heart and too damn politically correct.

0

thestoryteller Aug. 13, 2009 @ 4:01 p.m.

Refried: I saw my name, but I have no idea what you said, as I do not read your comments. I suppose it was unfair to bring you into this. But if you don't like it, I suggest you take it up with your friend, SDaniels. She's the one who started it and continually brings it up because she's got nothing else, poor girl.

0

David Dodd Aug. 13, 2009 @ 4:38 p.m.

"Refried: I saw my name, but I have no idea what you said, as I do not read your comments."

This is what psychiatrists call being in "denial". And you are the one who continually brings it up, this thread is proof of that. You just can't let it go, can you? I gnaws at you, sticks in your craw. I've also noticed that every time someone posts some derogatory comment concerning SD, you are quick to bust in to make friends with whomever posted the comment.

Your comment in #75 proves it. You look for that opening and attack! Do you realize how pathetic it is that, as a presumed adult, you act like a kid in grade school? Have you always had problems confronting your insecurities? Pete didn't call SD a lesbian the first time around, he called her a derogatory term meant to reference a lesbian, so I imagine then that you're okay with such references, which makes me question your supposed support of the gay community.

You're proving yourself to be an idiot.

0

PistolPete Aug. 13, 2009 @ 5:21 p.m.

Just for the record,I may use derogatory terms sometimes in regard to the gay community but I am NOT a homophobe. Politically incorrect,yes. A homophobe,hardly. Calling SDaniels a lesbian(different term used)was classless and I'm sorry SDaniels. Now. Can we continue biting one another's heads off? This is gettin' goodgrabs popcorn and lawn chair.

0

Josh Board Aug. 13, 2009 @ 5:49 p.m.

SDaniels...I was all prepared to leave you alone. And I'm all for the "truce" you suggested in email. The problem I have, though...are that when you fight with Pete, that's fine. Fight with him. Go to battle. But I've heard from people on the boards, that you tell them NOT to side with Pete on issues. And to me, if you're sending emails to others on issues, that's just lame.

If you guys argue on an issue, people will post which side they come down on. If it isn't the side you are on, oh well. No need to resort to childish playground tactics.

Okay. Now...

Continue on with your guys fight.

0

antigeekess Aug. 13, 2009 @ 5:53 p.m.

Good God. An extended episode of "As the Stomach Turns..." Or Jerry Springer. Or something.

Refried's testy and Pete just turned into an actual human and then made me laugh. Didn't see either one of those coming...

Thanks for the history lesson in post #78, refried. It' a shame you're too classy to post all that crazy wackadoodle sh*t, because it sounds pretty entertaining.

Daniels, looks like you need about a CASE of this:

http://www.papygeek.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/troll_spray.jpg

I know. I just posted it on another thread, but it's my favorite new thing. Sue me.

:)

0

David Dodd Aug. 13, 2009 @ 5:56 p.m.

I'm not out for some stupid internet fight, I just want mindy or storyteller or whatever she calls herself these days to knock off the crap. As soon as Josh and SD got into it, mindy started to kiss Josh's butt, and she'll kiss yours too, Pete, if she perceives that you disagree with SD. She loves to drag my name into the crapfest that, apparently, keeps her awake at night, but I've got some psychotic rambling messages from her that I'm sure she doesn't want me to share.

So far as the lesbian reference, it was nice of you to apologize, but really, there are more efficient ways of getting one's point across. I'm more into dialoge than rhetoric, because rhetoric can sometimes be exclusive and dialog almost never is. Dialog is more persuasive in my opinion. The thing is, when engaging in dialog, the best road to take is to not have to regret what you say. It doesn't mean that one should always be politically correct, simply that one should consider what's typed into the box before pressing the button to publish the comment.

0

David Dodd Aug. 13, 2009 @ 6 p.m.

anti: Actually, I'm in a really good mood this afternoon. I thought I was going to have to drag my lazy butt all of the way to the grocery store to get stuff in order to cook dinner, but it turns out I found some stuff in the freezer that I can whip up in an hour. Good times :)

0

SurfPuppy619 Aug. 13, 2009 @ 6:28 p.m.

Daniels, looks like you need about a CASE of this:

http://www.papygeek.com/wp-content/uploa...

I know. I just posted it on another thread, but it's my favorite new thing. Sue me.

:)

By antigeekess

Geekess, I thought I was the only one who got the troll spray treatment??? What gives sweetay??..............now I don't feel "special" anymore in your eyes.

0

PistolPete Aug. 13, 2009 @ 8:13 p.m.

LMAO@ The Troll Spray. If that s--t was real,I'd be a dead troll by now. I used to hate trolls. Then I became one. Kind of. Most of the boards I frequent need a troll now and then to put things back into perspective. I just joined the signonsandiego boards today because I got tired of reading about all the Chargeless fans whining about the blackout(which couldn't make me happier and I can't wait till the regular season blackouts). I didn't start out on these boards to troll. I swear. I'm the type of person not to take things personal online(even it seems like they do sometimes). If I say something offensive and feel from the feedback I read on it that I'm wrong,I'll be more than willing to apologize. If I feel I'm right,then ya'll can get f--ked. It's that simple. :-D I'll be more than happy to admit that I'm rude.crude and not everybody's cup of meat. That's ok. I still do a great job making people re-think their stances.

0

PistolPete Aug. 13, 2009 @ 8:16 p.m.

Oh. I almost forgot. I don't believe in online allegiances. I may agree with example A with Josh one day and not agree with example B with Josh the next day. I have a mind that I'm not afraid to share.

0

Sign in to comment