Wapsi Square Forum

Heh. Way back in 1972, i did a flyer over the back deck of a car that turned left in front of me. I was in a hurry and had been building speed on my ten-speed for a mile or so, so when i hit the car a couple feet behind the back door it was up in the air junior birdman.

The car didn't have a trunk lid, so to this day i have a slightly depressed area in my thigh just above the knee - it didn't break the skin but it apparently crushed the muscle a bit.

But the real fun part was my elbow going through the back window.

Three hours on the table in the Emergency Room, forty-some sutures, and forty-four years later (this month, in fact) the scars are still easily visible (though they finally turned white instead of staying red as they did for ten or more years...)

Dave wrote:

Warrl wrote:They also seem to work on wolves, foxes, bighorn sheep, antelope, and maybe bears (only one instance). Possibly other things as well.

You just have to be careful what tune you have them whistle. If it's a Justin Bieber song, the animals might un-freeze.

ISWYDT.

jwhouk wrote:ISWYDT.

As well you should, my friend!

I have no idea what that means. Do you?

Alkarii wrote:I have no idea what that means. Do you?

It's a reference to events in the fanfics in the "Wapsi Square Fan Art" forum.

Alkarii wrote:I have no idea what that means. Do you?

Joe was saying "I See What You Did There"... as Warrl correctly explained, I was making an oblique reference to one of the pieces of fan fiction that has graced this Forum in recent months, and Joe recognized the reference.

Dave wrote:

Alkarii wrote:I have no idea what that means. Do you?

Joe was saying "I See What You Did There"... as Warrl correctly explained, I was making an oblique reference to one of the pieces of fan fiction that has graced this Forum in recent months, and Joe recognized the reference.

As I recall, the Justin Beiber concept was his puppy... (Joe's)

Dave wrote: . . .

FreeFlier wrote:There was just one in Washington where a driver had a medical emergency and ran through a group of kids waiting for the schoolbus.

Oww. Ungood. Especially so, since the driver is reported to have had a history of seizures and to have been driving with a suspended license. He's been charged with vehicular assault... hope it doesn't end up as vehicular manslaughter.

Hadn't heard that . . . it's the right charge for that case.


Some years ago there was a drunk driver that killed a woman the day he got out of jail from his previous drunk driving charge . . . the prosecutor charged him with second-degree murder, only because the prosecutor felt he wouldn't be able to prove premeditation. (This was the third person he'd killed driving drunk. This was also about the time they started really cracking down on drunk drivers.) Got a conviction, and managed to tick the judge off badly enough that the judge ordered him sent to the furthest-away state prison for his entire term . . . neither the prisoner nor the Department of Corrections was happy about that.

--FreeFlier

Rule of thumb: don't piss off the judge. They can make life suck extra-bad.

Better rule of thumb: Don't get into situations where you have to talk to judges or lawyers or cops.

Best rule of thumb: befriend every judge, lawyer, and cop you come across.

Sgt. Howard wrote:

Dave wrote: Joe was saying "I See What You Did There"... as Warrl correctly explained, I was making an oblique reference to one of the pieces of fan fiction that has graced this Forum in recent months, and Joe recognized the reference.

As I recall, the Justin Beiber concept was his puppy... (Joe's)

And I just pulled it out of a hat, to be honest.

jwhouk wrote:

Sgt. Howard wrote:

Dave wrote: Joe was saying "I See What You Did There"... as Warrl correctly explained, I was making an oblique reference to one of the pieces of fan fiction that has graced this Forum in recent months, and Joe recognized the reference.

As I recall, the Justin Beiber concept was his puppy... (Joe's)

And I just pulled it out of a hat, to be honest.

I don't recall ever hearing why the two Russians were after the moose and squirrel. Does anyone know?

Alkarii wrote:I don't recall ever hearing why the two Russians were after the moose and squirrel. Does anyone know?

I don't recall either, though that doesn't mean much. However, there's no mention of it in the Wikipedia articles, either, which suggests it was simply Boris's bad luck and/or incompetence.

--FreeFlier

Alkarii wrote:I don't recall ever hearing why the two Russians were after the moose and squirrel. Does anyone know?

Natasha and Boris weren't Russian - they were Potsylvanian.

Just thought of this parallel...

Rocky = 99
Bullwinkle = Max
Boris = Stryker
Natasha = KAOS didn't have much of an EEO program, did they?
Fearless Leader = Sigfried

AmriloJim wrote:Natasha = KAOS didn't have much of an EEO program, did they?

Nyet. I saw several episodes recently, and the only female KAOS operative was the Russian assistant to the sinister Dr. Yes.

Considering that the on-screen lifespan of the average KAOS blackshirt was about that of a suicidal fruitfly, we can perhaps assume that the females may have been too powerful and clever to put themselves into the line of fire as field agents.

Alkarii wrote:I don't recall ever hearing why the two Russians were after the moose and squirrel. Does anyone know?

Depended on the story arc. Somehow the Moose and Squirrel usually had the dubious luck of ending up with the muggufin that Fearless leader wanted, and/or in the way of some mischief that Boris and Natasha were assigned.

AFAIR...

FreeFlier wrote:Some years ago there was a drunk driver that killed a woman the day he got out of jail from his previous drunk driving charge . . . the prosecutor charged him with second-degree murder, only because the prosecutor felt he wouldn't be able to prove premeditation. (This was the third person he'd killed driving drunk. This was also about the time they started really cracking down on drunk drivers.) Got a conviction, and managed to tick the judge off badly enough that the judge ordered him sent to the furthest-away state prison for his entire term . . . neither the prisoner nor the Department of Corrections was happy about that.

--FreeFlier

I can understand why the prisoner would be upset, but why the Dept. of Corrections? What am I missing?

lake_wrangler wrote:

FreeFlier wrote:Some years ago there was a drunk driver that killed a woman the day he got out of jail from his previous drunk driving charge . . . the prosecutor charged him with second-degree murder, only because the prosecutor felt he wouldn't be able to prove premeditation. (This was the third person he'd killed driving drunk. This was also about the time they started really cracking down on drunk drivers.) Got a conviction, and managed to tick the judge off badly enough that the judge ordered him sent to the furthest-away state prison for his entire term . . . neither the prisoner nor the Department of Corrections was happy about that.

--FreeFlier

I can understand why the prisoner would be upset, but why the Dept. of Corrections? What am I missing?

Well, there are a few states where that could be several hundred miles of prisoner transport...

Also, generally convicts are put into the custody of the Department of Corrections, which can then choose what prison to put them in - and move them - on whatever basis seems necessary and convenient. Sometimes it's transport costs and current prison populations, sometimes it's to break up a prison gang, or to protect a prisoner who's been targeted by one or more other prisoners, and sometimes there are other reasons for the choice. But if the judge specifies a prison, that's it - the Department can't move the prisoner to a different prison unless it petitions the court and gets permission to do so.

lake_wrangler wrote:

FreeFlier wrote:Some years ago there was a drunk driver that killed a woman the day he got out of jail from his previous drunk driving charge . . . the prosecutor charged him with second-degree murder, only because the prosecutor felt he wouldn't be able to prove premeditation. (This was the third person he'd killed driving drunk. This was also about the time they started really cracking down on drunk drivers.) Got a conviction, and managed to tick the judge off badly enough that the judge ordered him sent to the furthest-away state prison for his entire term . . . neither the prisoner nor the Department of Corrections was happy about that.

--FreeFlier

I can understand why the prisoner would be upset, but why the Dept. of Corrections? What am I missing?

Having to reprocess the guy probably isn't a big thrill on their parts.