The candidate of "change"

[Terry in Crapchester]

I didn't see this earlier . . .

Weren't you on the JFK?

No, I was on the Forrestal. In response to titlover's point, that was an even bigger POS than the JFK. If memory serves, it made one more deployment after I got out, only because the first Iraq War broke out shortly thereafter. It was supposed to become the Navy's training carrier, but the plans for that got scuttled. I believe that the Navy salvaged most of its parts for scrap, and is planning to sink the hull.

Do they still fly the S-3, titlover?

I don't really keep up on these things anymore, and the source I checked real quick is far from authoritative, but . . .

According to Wikipedia, the S-3 mission has been changed from ASW to anti-surface warfare and the A-6's and A-7's have been decommissioned.

One of the things about being a Navy officer, there was always a rivalry between officers based on branches of the service, warfare specialties, even sub-specialties. Being a SWO on an aircraft carrier, I was always a second-class citizen in that environment. One good thing, speaking of A-6 and A-7 pilots, along with F-14 and F/A-18 pilots, were always referred to as Fighter Attack Guys, or more commonly, by the acronym. Three guesses what that acronym was, and the first two don't count.

[RadioFan]

Every Other Industrialized Country In The World also has an official state supported religion, with the ministers paid by the taxpayers.

Every Other Industrialized Country In The World also has government oversight & approval of their news media.

Quite possibly the two funniest things ever posted in here.

I'd ask for links on both of these ludicrous statements, but I'm laughing too hard at appleCuda's intimate knowledge of "Every Other Industrialized Country In The World."

Now THAT is funny.


Carry on ...

[Dinsdale]

I was always a second-class citizen in that environment.

So, see if I got this right...


You spent your military career as a "second-class citizen."


But that not being enough, you decided to persue professional scum-of-the-earth as a profession, so you could be downgraded to "third-class citizen" through the rest of your adult life?


Dear god, what a loser.

[Terry in Crapchester]

I was always a second-class citizen in that environment.

So, see if I got this right...


You spent your military career as a "second-class citizen."

No choice on that point, Sparky. But since you never served, you obviously don't know that.

But that not being enough, you decided to persue professional scum-of-the-earth as a profession, so you could be downgraded to "third-class citizen" through the rest of your adult life?


Dear god, what a loser.

Quick question: which profession is the one that interprets the Constitution?

[Dinsdale]

Quick question: which profession is the one that interprets the Constitution?

The judges serving in the Judicial Branch...


Absolutely none of whom are lawyers.

PLEASE tell me you knew?

BTW-http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris ... sp?PID=688

[Goober McTuber]

Quick question: which profession is the one that interprets the Constitution?

The judges serving in the Judicial Branch...


Absolutely none of whom are lawyers.

PLEASE tell me you knew?

Do you have a link on that one? Around these parts, just about every judge is a lawyer. I mean, I’m sure that in U & L every judge is a schoolteacher, a doctor or a scientist, but out here in God’s country it seems like we got stuck with a passel of them lawyers.

[Terry in Crapchester]

Quick question: which profession is the one that interprets the Constitution?

The judges serving in the Judicial Branch...


Absolutely none of whom are lawyers.

PLEASE tell me you knew?

Do you have a link on that one? Around these parts, just about every judge is a lawyer. I mean, I’m sure that in U & L every judge is a schoolteacher, a doctor or a scientist, but out here in God’s country it seems like we got stuck with a passel of them lawyers.

I suppose I should point out, in fairness, that Dins is partly right, at least as applied to where I live. Town and village court justices don't have to be lawyers. That's because there are a lot of rural towns where either no lawyers live, or none of the lawyers who live there want the position. But for any other judicial position in this state, you have to be a lawyer. And by and large, the better town and village court justices are lawyers, at least imho.

There's also no Constitutional requirement that a Supreme Court Justice be a lawyer, although it's sorta kinda become an unwritten rule.

[Goober McTuber]

I'm not an egg-spurt but I don't believe that any of your hillbilly judges are part of the "Judicial Branch", which I interpreted to mean the Federal Judiciary. They are part of your local government.

[Terry in Crapchester]

It's more than just the federal judiciary that is charged with interpreting the Constitution. And I believe they would be considered part of the state judicial branch. At least they're eligible for a state retirement -- I know that for certain.

[Goober McTuber]

Interesting. Here we have municipal and circuit courts, which appear to be part of local government (city and county, respectively), but I know that the State can bring charges in the circuit courts. The only real state courts we have appear to be the appeals courts.

[Dinsdale]

I'm not an egg-spurt but I don't believe that any of your hillbilly judges are part of the "Judicial Branch", which I interpreted to mean the Federal Judiciary. They are part of your local government.

That's where I was heading, which I'll grant I didn't do a good job of.


Smaller jurisdictions, the judges are in fact usually lawyers as well. Of course, with the complete lack of honesty and integrity in that profession, the trend has been to get away from those employed as lawyers, since they proven time and time and time and time and time again they're not to be trusted with the inherent conflict-of-interest involved.


The point being, no fucking lawyer in the land "interprets" the Constitution, and anyone who says they do is a dumbfuck/lawyer (yeah yeah, go ahead and link up my "redundancy" diatribe -- I deserve it).


Uhm, I hate to have to keep educating you about legal stuff Terry (what does that tell you?), but when a judge takes the bench, he's not acting as a "lawyer" -- he's acting as a "judge." But thanks for the laugh, knowing there's a lawyer somewhere that actually needs this explained to him... it must be a real hoot to watch you show up to court wearing a robe to defend a client.


But really, anyone whose great aspiration was to join the absolute LEAST trusted profession in the country that doesn't involve people who are actually paid to lie and be deceptive by definition... probably needs quite a few really basic things explained to them.

[Terry in Crapchester]

I'm not an egg-spurt but I don't believe that any of your hillbilly judges are part of the "Judicial Branch", which I interpreted to mean the Federal Judiciary. They are part of your local government.

That's where I was heading, which I'll grant I didn't do a good job of.


Smaller jurisdictions, the judges are in fact usually lawyers as well. Of course, with the complete lack of honesty and integrity in that profession, the trend has been to get away from those employed as lawyers, since they proven time and time and time and time and time again they're not to be trusted with the inherent conflict-of-interest involved.


The point being, no fucking lawyer in the land "interprets" the Constitution, and anyone who says they do is a dumbfuck/lawyer (yeah yeah, go ahead and link up my "redundancy" diatribe -- I deserve it).


Uhm, I hate to have to keep educating you about legal stuff Terry (what does that tell you?), but when a judge takes the bench, he's not acting as a "lawyer" -- he's acting as a "judge." But thanks for the laugh, knowing there's a lawyer somewhere that actually needs this explained to him... it must be a real hoot to watch you show up to court wearing a robe to defend a client.


But really, anyone whose great aspiration was to join the absolute LEAST trusted profession in the country that doesn't involve people who are actually paid to lie and be deceptive by definition... probably needs quite a few really basic things explained to them.

It's a set-subset thing. All (well, not quite all, but most) judges are lawyers. Obviously, not all lawyers are judges.

But bringing a challenge to any statute on constitutional grounds involves at least some level of constitutional interpretation. Not that it has any weight of law unless a judge happens to agree with it.

[Dinsdale]

Interesting. Here we have municipal and circuit courts, which appear to be part of local government (city and county, respectively), but I know that the State can bring charges in the circuit courts. The only real state courts we have appear to be the appeals courts.

Unless the terminology is radically different from here, circuit courts ARE state courts. Instead of having every defendant, prosecutor, and lawyer travel to the state capital, they appoint a judge to hear state court cases in the county courtroom. In the old Days, there wasn't enough caseload to have a full time judge for every county, so they travelled a "circuit" of county courts. I think that whole setup has gone by the wayside in most places, and in my county, a county judge also serves as the cicuit court judge, but that's the etymology of "circuit court" as I know it.

If the charges are filed by the state, it goes to circuit court, which may or may not share a judge with the county/municipal court.

[Truman]

Quick question: which profession is the one that interprets the Constitution?

We have professional Constitutional interpreters?

Now there's a relief...

...And here I thought the Framers actually meant what they wrote...

[Truman]

I'm assuming that by "basic functions" you are referring to what is essentially America's mission statement. You know, the Preamble to the Constitution.

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

But I'm sure if you were there in 1787, you would have taken the whiteout to that part about "promoting the general welfare".

No doubt you also would have volunteered to rewrite the commerce clause.

How many more times do you need to lose this argument, B?

When the Founding Fathers said that “WE THE PEOPLE” established the Constitution to “promote the general Welfare,” they did not mean the federal government would have the power to aid education, build roads, and subsidize business. Likewise, Article 1, Section 8 did not give Congress the right to use tax money for whatever social and economic programs Congress might think would be good for the “general welfare.”

http://www.lawandliberty.org/genwel.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Dinsdale]

Roads and other common infrastructure projects most certainly fall under the promotion of general welfare.

Social and economic programs most emphatically do not promote general welfare.

I think my ultra-constitutionist views are on the record at this point, and I agree with these statements wholeheartedly.


Matter of fact, the building of roads is actually mentioned by name in Article 1, Section 8. Then again, so is war-declaration, and that hasn't meant shit for quite some time now.


Social and economic programs are simply a matter of wealth-redistribution, and shouldn't be mentioned in the same breath as promoting the general welfare, since wealth redistribution is in very stark contrast to why the Founders even thought to start their own nation to begin with.

[Terry in Crapchester]

Quick question: which profession is the one that interprets the Constitution?

We have professional Constitutional interpreters?

Now there's a relief...

...And here I thought the Framers actually meant what they wrote...

Not all of the language in the Constitution is crystal clear. Second Amendment (hardly a model of draftsmanship) out front should have told you so. Nor could the Framers have envisioned every possible scenario with Constitutional implications. Tell me you knew.

[Dinsdale]

We have professional Constitutional interpreters?

Yeah, maybe you've heard of them? They often go by the title Supreme Court Justices.

...And here I thought the Framers actually meant what they wrote..

Me too. Especially when they wrote that they were going to establish a Judiciary to settle things when certain interests unilaterally decide that the Constitution doesn't apply to their particular situation, or do shit like think that religious displays are appropriate for public buildings.

[Truman]

We have professional Constitutional interpreters?

Yeah, maybe you've heard of them? They often go by the title Supreme Court Justices.

...And here I thought the Framers actually meant what they wrote..

Me too. Especially when they wrote that they were going to establish a Judiciary to settle things when certain interests unilaterally decide that the Constitution doesn't apply to their particular situation, or do shit like think that religious displays are appropriate for public buildings.

Article. III.

Section. 1. The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section. 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; — to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; — to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; — to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; — to Controversies between two or more States; — between a State and Citizens of another State [Modified by Amendment XI]; — between Citizens of different States; — between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Section. 3. Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Ah. Clearly such duties you describe were defined by the Founders in Article III, Section 4, eh, Dins?

Curious that http://www.constitution.org/constit_.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; was strangely negligent to preclude this critically important Section from its Web page.

Perhaps you should look into that "professional Constitutional interpreter" career thingie yourself....

[Truman]

Not all of the language in the Constitution is crystal clear. Second Amendment (hardly a model of draftsmanship) out front should have told you so. Nor could the Framers have envisioned every possible scenario with Constitutional implications. Tell me you knew.

What I know is that I do not need to engage the services of an attorney to "interpret" my right to keep and bear Arms. I might be inclined to ask what other Amendments in the Bill of Rights defeat you, were you and B still not stuck on that maddening Preamble....

[Dinsdale]

What I know is that I do not need to engage the services of an attorney to "interpret" my right to keep and bear Arms.

OK, try and follow along now, OK?

Someday, an overzealous state legislator might railroad some state law that says you can't have a gun unless you're in the military.

There would possibly a few appeals processes.


Now, here's your $64,000 Question, Lieman --

At the end of the day, the ___________ would ultimately decide upon whether this interpretation of the 2nd is correct or not.



Hint: This isn't hidden in Article 3, Section 4... one of the more stupid things you've posted... which is saying quite a bit. Although you're quite the enigma, dude -- so incredibly dense, yet so eloquent in spouting your stupidity... a ponderous combination if I've ever seen one.[/i]

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

At the end of the day, the president would ultimately decide upon whether this interpretation of the 2nd is correct or not.

The tiny scrap of Constitution trailing along on Bush's shoe as he walks out of the bathroom stall while the Supreme Court tacitly nods approval tells you everything you need to know.

[Goober McTuber]

Interesting. Here we have municipal and circuit courts, which appear to be part of local government (city and county, respectively), but I know that the State can bring charges in the circuit courts. The only real state courts we have appear to be the appeals courts.

Unless the terminology is radically different from here, circuit courts ARE state courts. Instead of having every defendant, prosecutor, and lawyer travel to the state capital, they appoint a judge to hear state court cases in the county courtroom. In the old Days, there wasn't enough caseload to have a full time judge for every county, so they travelled a "circuit" of county courts. I think that whole setup has gone by the wayside in most places, and in my county, a county judge also serves as the cicuit court judge, but that's the etymology of "circuit court" as I know it.

If the charges are filed by the state, it goes to circuit court, which may or may not share a judge with the county/municipal court.

I believe you are correct. I just always noticed the Circuit Courts here are listed in the phone book government pages under the County of Dane, not the State of Wisconsin. Never gave it a whole lot of thought, I’ve only seen them from the outside. I will bow to your superior experience with the court systems.

[Mikey]

I think they have different judges for parallel circuits and series circuits.

[Dinsdale]

I will bow to your superior experience with the court systems.

Hey! I resemble that statement.


As a young'un, I had a couple of... issues. Not sure why exactly, but it was the state that got into the bloodthirst first. But it was at my county courthouse, with a county judge acting on behalf of the state, and the county ADA (who was a MAJOR FUCKING PRICK, and I'd do evil things to that fucker to this very day if I could get away with it... he fully earned it with the completely over-the-top overzealousness... tried to get me a long jail sentence for a freaking DUII... whatever, tard... is this really going to help you out, along with the election campaign signs on every corner?)


But it was still Oregon vs. Dinsdale, not Washington County vs Dinsdale.


And as mv pointed out, the Fed circuit is completely different.

[Terry in Crapchester]

We have professional Constitutional interpreters?

Yeah, maybe you've heard of them? They often go by the title Supreme Court Justices.

...And here I thought the Framers actually meant what they wrote..

Me too. Especially when they wrote that they were going to establish a Judiciary to settle things when certain interests unilaterally decide that the Constitution doesn't apply to their particular situation, or do shit like think that religious displays are appropriate for public buildings.

Article. III.

Section. 1. The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

Article III, §1 clearly establishes "judicial power" in the federal courts. Marbury v. Madison delineated exactly what that power is.

[Dinsdale]

I just always noticed the Circuit Courts here are listed in the phone book government pages under the County of Dane, not the State of Wisconsin.

Just out of curiosity...

What compelled you to rifle through the phonebook looking for courtrooms?


I mean sure, I've gotten liquored up and decided I was going to sue The Washington Huskies for being a giant douches, but I usually have the wherewithal to keep the phone firmly planted on the hook until I've had a chance to review my lawsuit the next morning.

[titlover]

Do they still fly the S-3, titlover? I think they got rid of them since the cold war is over and we don't need ASW capability anymore....until ofcourse the chinks get done building their sub force.

I hated that fukking plane because I always had to beg the fukking yellow shirts to move that piece of shit so I could do uhh, ahh fukk it, so I could do "pole checks". Go ahead tards and insert weak homosmack here.

Pole checks by the way is how you check the ships instrument landing system. There is a pole with a receiver on it that gets raised up...as soon as the airdale pos plane captain moves his bird.

Titlover probably was that dude.

fuck my whole post got fucking deleted. well, they don't have s-3's on carriers anymore and i believe they're all decommissioned. i wasn't the plane captain fucking up your deck, i was the shitbag AW in the back of the plane. they have F-18's doing the tanking now, yeah, fucking Hornets didn't think i'd ever see that day. the ASW community has kind of been neglected to say the least. but they do have a new plane in the works to replace the P-3, of course, it will only have two engines instead of four. fuck that. slow and low doing ASW, that'd kinda make me nervous. oh well.

[smackaholic]

Yeah, 150 kts, 200 ft over the waves is a really shitty place to lose an engine on a twin engine plane. And I don't give a fukk how reliable new jet engines are, shit still happens.

Can somebody unrun AP for his take?

[smackaholic]

Do they still fly the S-3, titlover? I think they got rid of them since the cold war is over and we don't need ASW capability anymore....until ofcourse the chinks get done building their sub force.

I hated that fukking plane because I always had to beg the fukking yellow shirts to move that piece of shit so I could do uhh, ahh fukk it, so I could do "pole checks". Go ahead tards and insert weak homosmack here.

Pole checks by the way is how you check the ships instrument landing system. There is a pole with a receiver on it that gets raised up...as soon as the airdale pos plane captain moves his bird.

Titlover probably was that dude.

fuck my whole post got fucking deleted. well, they don't have s-3's on carriers anymore and i believe they're all decommissioned. i wasn't the plane captain fucking up your deck, i was the shitbag AW in the back of the plane. they have F-18's doing the tanking now, yeah, fucking Hornets didn't think i'd ever see that day. the ASW community has kind of been neglected to say the least. but they do have a new plane in the works to replace the P-3, of course, it will only have two engines instead of four. fuck that. slow and low doing ASW, that'd kinda make me nervous. oh well.

There was an S-3 that went for a swim during my time on board. Forget when it was exactly. Could have been in the med or during workups. Something went wrong during a launch from one of the bow cats. The plane did a starboard roll immediately after launch. Everybody punched out while it was rolled over atleast 90 degrees. That's a bad thing. They went straight into the drink. The only one to make it was the AW sitting in your seat. Both pilots and backseat officer dude were fish chum.

[titlover]

Do they still fly the S-3, titlover? I think they got rid of them since the cold war is over and we don't need ASW capability anymore....until ofcourse the chinks get done building their sub force.

I hated that fukking plane because I always had to beg the fukking yellow shirts to move that piece of shit so I could do uhh, ahh fukk it, so I could do "pole checks". Go ahead tards and insert weak homosmack here.

Pole checks by the way is how you check the ships instrument landing system. There is a pole with a receiver on it that gets raised up...as soon as the airdale pos plane captain moves his bird.

Titlover probably was that dude.

fuck my whole post got fucking deleted. well, they don't have s-3's on carriers anymore and i believe they're all decommissioned. i wasn't the plane captain fucking up your deck, i was the shitbag AW in the back of the plane. they have F-18's doing the tanking now, yeah, fucking Hornets didn't think i'd ever see that day. the ASW community has kind of been neglected to say the least. but they do have a new plane in the works to replace the P-3, of course, it will only have two engines instead of four. fuck that. slow and low doing ASW, that'd kinda make me nervous. oh well.

There was an S-3 that went for a swim during my time on board. Forget when it was exactly. Could have been in the med or during workups. Something went wrong during a launch from one of the bow cats. The plane did a starboard roll immediately after launch. Everybody punched out while it was rolled over atleast 90 degrees. That's a bad thing. They went straight into the drink. The only one to make it was the AW sitting in your seat. Both pilots and backseat officer dude were fish chum.

yeah, i knew that guy. he was in my trng squadron VS-27 as an instructor. he was in the hospital for a while after that. he didn't really talk about it too much, only when you asked him about it. besides that he was kind of a jack ass. he was a good system operator though.

mv, yeah, you are slow and low when deploying an ASW pattern. helo's though are very limited when it comes to prosecuting a sub. their main focus of trng is SAR. they do have a dipping sonar which is nice.

just nice to know when you're down at low altitude you still have 3 engines left if one suddenly shits the bed.

[Goober McTuber]

I just always noticed the Circuit Courts here are listed in the phone book government pages under the County of Dane, not the State of Wisconsin.

Just out of curiosity...

What compelled you to rifle through the phonebook looking for courtrooms?

I wasn’t looking for courtrooms; I was looking up a phone number for some other government office, and happened to notice the circuit courts were listed there. I’m kind of observant like that, and I I have a photogenic memory.

[smackaholic]

slow and low doing ASW

Seems like you should be slow and low when doing ASW. Wouldn't helicopers be better suited for that role?

Helos have shitty range/endurance. lso, I suspect that a helo hoovering a few hundred ft over the surface going thup thup thup, doesn't help underwater acoustics much. It prolly also alerts any sub within a few thousand miles that it is being looked for.

[smackaholic]

from underwater a chopper is much louder. Some helos can refuel in air. Big fast ones like the ch-53. Smaller ones used in ASW ops, I dunno. I been away from that shit for awhile. When I was on active duty they used the old sh-3 sea kings (I think that way their name). They were old as hell, slow and definitely didn't have air refueling capabilities.

The bottom line is helos pretty much suck at doing anything other than hovering in place and being able to land/takeoff without a runway.

[RadioFan]

I think they have different judges for parallel circuits and series circuits.

True, but parallel circuits can be circuitous, while series circuts get right to the point, i.e.: Batter Up.

[RadioFan]

So your fixed wing aircraft are completely silent? That's remarkable.

Good to know you're finally WAKEY WAKEY

Sin,

[Truman]

OK, try and follow along now, OK?

Someday, an overzealous state legislator might railroad some state law that says you can't have a gun unless you're in the military.

There would possibly a few appeals processes.

Now, here's your $64,000 Question, Lieman --

At the end of the day, the ___________ would ultimately decide upon whether this interpretation of the 2nd is correct or not.

Er… Legislators railroading state laws?!

Pray tell, Dins, how does THAT work?

I see SOMEBODY is struggling with that whole Separation of Powers concept thingie…

…And you chastise ME for stupid posts…?

IKYABWAI?



But since you're bent on chucking batting practice…

Given the mindless scenario you scribbled above, I couldn't possibly attest how the Learned High Court Magistrates of the Peoples Republic of Oregon might rule on such a vacuous case.

However, I feel pretty damn comfortable in suggesting that not only would the Missouri Supremes cast out such folly on its merits, they would swiftly and decisively rule upon the Articles of Impeachment wrought by the General Assembly exactly seven seconds after such specious legislation was ever introduced.

Sayin'.

Hint: This isn't hidden in Article 3, Section 4... one of the more stupid things you've posted... which is saying quite a bit.

More Accurate Hint: It isn't hidden in Article 3, Sections 1, 2, or 3 either, Sparky. Tenth Amendment out front shoulda told you. But I sincerely apologize if my li'l parody of said Section nettled your sensibilities. I'll be sure to post [hyberbole][/hyperbole] tags next time just so you can keep up….

Although you're quite the enigma, dude -- so incredibly dense, yet so eloquent in spouting your stupidity... a ponderous combination if I've ever seen one.

Enigma? On an Internet message board?

Ponderous indeed.

Dins: You are a much better read in fights you can win. This ain't one of 'em. Cheers.

[Terry in Crapchester]

I have a photogenic memory.

For all intensive purposes, I'm sure that has contributed greatly to your self of steam.

Suprised that no one else picked up this softball earlier.

[Goober McTuber]

I have a photogenic memory.

For all intensive purposes, I'm sure that has contributed greatly to your self of steam.

Suprised that no one else picked up this softball earlier.

You wouldn’t understand unless you saw my head x-rays.

I was surprised I couldn't get a straight man any earlier.

[Mikey]

I have a photogenic memory.

For all intensive purposes, I'm sure that has contributed greatly to your self of steam.

Suprised that no one else picked up this softball earlier.

You wouldn’t understand unless you saw my head x-rays.

I was surprised I couldn't get a straight man any earlier.

Why do you assume that Terry is straight?

Many moons ago at a time when I was a bartender, some of the regulars and I would occasionally have an impromptu trivia contest when things were slow in the afternoon. The owner's wife ([surprise]she was from Missouri, BTW[/surprise]) was so impressed with my powers of recall that she once announced to a packed house that I had a photogenic memory. Needless to say I was extremely flattered, but nobody ever said that about my face.

Her husband, who was extremely German, couldn't get the word "coincidence" right. He would say "that was a real co-accident."

Wild and crazy times, I tell ya.