See my post above where I talk about examples of how "taking it to the limit" has ruined talented athletes and even the sport itself. This has already happened with dog sports..Why bring it into human sports as well?
Yes this is all very true. But change in diet and excersize are ways of naturally enhancing one's skill. Gene therapy isn't. It's changing your *genes* to improve performance, which is just as much cheating IMHO as using a drug. It's not the negative side affects of steroids that bothers me when athletes use them but the fact that it is still in a lot of ways cheating. I am not saying they still don't do a lot of hard work to get where they are but it's still an unfair advantage. In fact, speaking as a dog trainer this sort of thing has been seen in both field trials, Obedience trials and conformation..While not gene therapy per say, what has happened is inferior dogs are actually being bred because instead of allowing the talent or characteristic to come naturally throug the gene pool, they use forms of cheating. For instance, in Yorkshire Terriers, the coat is supposed to be a color called "Blue and Tan" and is straight and silky in texture..Well instead of simply breeding for the color, many champion Yorkshire Terriers are actually *white* and very, very light golden. There is also wavy coats..Instead of breeding for that, breeders when going to show the dogs will die the coat with human hair coloring the blue and tan into the coat..Then they use a hand iron to straighten the coat. Of course this all takes hours, but really, should this dog with the wrong coat color and texture really be placed in a show over one with natural color? It's made it so most of the time, unless you know the dog personally, you won't know if breeding to the current famous Champoin is going to get the correct coat or faulty coat. In Field Trials dogs used to have lots of natural talent because that's all you had to work with..Then one trainer Rex Carr invented the electric collar..Now said collar has been improved over the years but basically what they found as with this training aid you could make any dog do almost anything..You used to have a dog that LIKED jumping in the water to retrieve a duck cuz otherwise you were rather hard pressed to force the dog if it really didn't want to. With the electric collars, now people just "burn" the dog till it goes in..In the long run since it is now easier than traditional methods and one can get greater percision, and it tended to *ruin* trainable talented dogs, many hard-headed, dogs with little to no natural desire to retrieve, go in water etc, have gotten field champions and if one saw the end result of the electric collar use you might think "wow, that's a very talented dog!" but then you breed your dog to said champoin and hey, how come the pups don't retrieve? Where did this thick headedness come from? Because what has happened is most field trial people have been selecting for dogs that "collar condition" the best..Conditioning the dog doesn't require the dog to think. Just react. And in the end most big name field champions are naturally not bright, but hard-headed, flakey (you can basically "re-wire" the dogs reactions against flightyness so instead of simply never training such a dog and not breeding it, they now train through it and the dog gets bred and throws it's defective personality genes into it's offspring), and some may or may not enjoy retrieving (hey if you can force them with electric stimulation does the dog really need to enjoy retrieveing? Used to be you had to have a dog that naturally LIKED to retrieve and worked with that)..So, one ends up with a highly inferior gene pool of working dogs, and since someone who doesn't use the electric collar can't force the kind of percision the electric collar trainers can make, the dogs with natural talent and brains (a dog trained without the collar has to have some brain cells to learn and think while out working, where as the collar dogs simply do everything like a robot with little to no thinking invloved..It's simply conditioned to act that way, and run a straight line..Most can't even hunt in a real hunting situation.) don't stand a chance against the e-collar dogs simply because percision standards have gone way up
>Nearly every atheletic >competition I can think of involves a lot of >practiced skill -- the type of thing that will >improve the over-all posture and >the kinetics of the athelete.
True. But some people are going to have the natural inborn talen towards those skills and some won't..With the added gene therapy, people who don't genetically have the talents can now have them..Perhaps even enhanced. My first post may have been a bit extreme as far as the number one player in his natural state (without therapy) being the worst. Yes, a lot of work and dedication is needed to be a good athlete, but yes some of that can be replaced with natural talent. Example, while not athletics, say "David" can naturally draw really well. He enjoys drawing so he does it a lot which with the practice allows him to be a even better artist with time. "Bob" loves drawing. It's his favorite thing to do. he draws more often than Daivd even does..But Bob doesn't have the natural talent to draw. He takes art lessons, and is much better than he would be without the practice, but he may still never be as good at drawing as David. The above may sound like a crock of shit, but I've knowen people who enjoy art or some other activety and though they have gotten better will never be great at that activety simply because they don't have the inborn talent. I actually happen to be naturally very talented at drawing..Funny thing is, I don't hardly draw that much anymore and haven't for over 10 years which means I haven't put in the hardwork and dedication needed to improve my skill. I have never had art lessons, and was always "good" even as a kid. Now I have knowen people who enjoy drawing and still paractice and have gone to art class and such and they still don't draw as well..I also have knowen people who are younger than me, less experience, no art class etc, and are much, much, better than I am. Point is, practice really helps, but I would suspect the majority of it is actaully genetic and when allowed to be molded in the right environment and training developes to it's peak level. BTW, I also have found that I can use a different meduim (chalk, oil paint, ink or whatever) that last time I tried using it was horrible and years later I try again and suddenly seem to just "know how" even though I hadn't even tinkered with that paticular medium in years..I have a hard time believing that isn't natural talent instead of simply "lots of practice".
You have some interesting points..But I think even if no health risks are involved it isn't fair to the other athletes if they end up having to go through gene therapy just to keep up with the competition...Also we would end up with lots less natural born/talented athletes in the long run and to a sports' fan, well..Lots of us would lose our respect for the players and the sport.. After all, what is more impressive, someone who works harder than anyone else on the team and is the secound best player or the number one player who without gene therapy would likely be the worst player but is number one due to artifically made telent? Just something for us all to think about.
Birth certificare as proof of US Citizenship, not age.. Was just at DMV running work errand last week and I noticed a sign saying after Feb 2004 they will no longer require this.. Sign certainly wasn't there in July and August though!
> I neither believe, nor do I disbelieve that any particular game caused any particular kid to go psycho. I would have to spend
some time with the kid in question (and I only have a bare BSc in psychology, not anything really that qualifies me to make a
clinical assessment of anyone), before I could possibly form an opinion.
I can understand the logic in that statement. Now if only the authorities would have pyschological testing for this on kids that do this type of thing maybe they can actually start putting 2 and 2 together. But I'd still be very surprised if the kid was even halfway sane to begin with.
> That being said, I can't exclude the possibility that violent media, induce, even in a small proportion of the population, a desire
to commit violent acts. Similarly I can't exclude the possibility, than in another proportion of the population the effect is
cathartic.
That possibly small population affected is either not sane or has some much bigger life issues that need taking care of because they sure as hell don't know how to cope properly. I don't think it's rocket science to see that the kid's behavior was both cruel and of the childishness of a very young and uneducated person well below the age of 10 years...And likely unstable and not sane. Medication/therapy in high order!
> I do believe that the answers to that are to be found in empirical research, and not merely in opinions such as "I can't believe
video games do that, because they don't do it to me,", or, "because I like them and it's more convenient for me to believe they
don't have any such effects," or whatever...
Yes I agree, their needs to be research done even though it seems obvious enough, but until then blame the actual commiters of the crime NOT their so called "excuse". BTW, for the record, I don't play VICE City, have no desire to, and don't really no *why* the creators thought this was a Good Idea theme for a game but that doesn't make me the person who has authority to say "it's bad because it harms children"..Well, it's not even supposed to get in the hands of children to begin with. And no, in all honesty I don't think it harms *normal* teenagers. And it sure as hell doesn't harm mature adults since we've never had even ONE case of an adult doing and blaming such a game.
>Any person at 16 that is that childish (and I think they are just using the game as a "quick excuse" for stupid
behavior) should still be under a lot more supervision by ones parents and *obviously* are not mature enough to be
allowed any game that has fantasy ellements cuz those morons simply don't have a clue about "right", "wrong",
"play" and "real".
> And that's exactly the point, unfortunately it seems, that some of these people are not being adequatley supervised, but are
allowed access to games, that arguably, instruct them in violence.
Well, then it's the *parents* that need to be cracked down on isn't it? Can't expect society to do all the child rearing for us can we? They do enough of that all ready. And yes, children are our future, but also childhood is a very short stage on one's life.
> And let's not forget there is violence and there is violence. An interesting empirical study might be the relation of the level of
fantasy (ie is a 'real-life' style violent game worse), to the criminogenic qualities of the game, assuming for a moment there are
any.
Good point. And who knows till research is done? But again it's about how well the kids can tell reality from fantasy and why the fantasy is not a Good Idea.
> And I define "not normal" as anyone with such a hair-trigger personality that a simple game can cause them to react
like a pyscho.
> Is this a 'simple' game, or a particularly violence inducing one? In any case let us hope that the poeple you define as 'normal'
far outweigh the people out there who you define as reacting like psychos
Of course I believe in individual responsability. On first read of your post I thought "good point" but then upon thinking about it, come on, do you REALLY believe the game caused them to go pyscho? I sure as hell don't. They're 16 years old not 5 year-olds. Any person at 16 that is that childish (and I think they are just using the game as a "quick excuse" for stupid behavior) should still be under a lot more supervision by ones parents and *obviously* are not mature enough to be allowed any game that has fantasy ellements cuz those morons simply don't have a clue about "right", "wrong", "play" and "real". So it's either stupid parents, stupid kids, or both! Probably both. The blame is on the kids/parents not the game company.
Oh, and as for that 1% of not normal kids. They grow up to be not normal adults and therefore IMO shouldn't be allowed loose in society to begin with. And I define "not normal" as anyone with such a hair-trigger personality that a simple game can cause them to react like a pyscho.
Someone please mod Mantorps's post up as "insightful"!
I don't know why people would think a kid that was half-way normal might blow up or kill people from watching TV/playing video games, etc. I knew plenty of kids growing up that played Mortal Combat, DOOM, etc that never ever decided it would be "cool" to go off killing people. If such games/TV caused a kid or adult to become violent there is something seriously WRONG with that person.. And trust me, even if there were no violent video games or movies, kids that weren't normal would still think up these kind of things even if it just meant throwing rocks at drivers or bashing some other kid's head in with an axe.
My mom was rather the opposite; I was assumed up to something unless proven otherwise, and the only way to get any private space, or to have anything truly my OWN that I didn't have to "share" with my younger sister, was to hide it elsewhere entirely. Needless to say, this wasn't a great situation!
Oh, perfect way to train you to not only resent your mom but your sibling too:( Kids need to learn to "share" but they also need their own stuff too.
I had very similar up-bringing only my older sister always had "things" but I always had to "share" everything. What's wrong with this picture??
Oh man. My mother would have loved to have THAT program:( Instead she decided to "home school" my sister and I so she had constant control ALL day. Now here I am at 21, trying to get my GED because I don't even have a High School diploma even though I still did 12 years of "schooling".
All I see, is just another way for parents to tighten chains on kids they obviously have a poor relationship with to begin with. After all, if the realtionship with your kid is good, you won't have to wonder how he acts at school because he'll trust you enough to let you know. So instead of "spying" on your kids people should take the time to build some kind of quality relationship with them. Not saying the parent shouldn't be in charge, they should, but they also need to find a balance that allows the kid to feel trusted and not just living with a dictator who they feel doesn't even actually care about THEM just there own power (as the child sees it).
I find that very interesting being that the computer database at my local Library can pull up books under my name that I have checked out as far as 10 years ago that I even *know* about. Could go even farther, I don't know.
Reminds me of when my boss hires on a couple people from the Millionair's Club for grunt work. Per the Millionair's Club, you MUST provide a meal for all workers as well as pay them in cash and a ride from the bus station to your work. Well the bus from Redmond to Seattle where they come from is at 5:00PM so my boss has to pack them all up by 4:30 and one time (once that I know of. Could be more than that but I haven't paid all that much attention to it.) she "didn't get around" to feeding the poor guys lunch till 3:00 in the afternoon! Not to mention "lunch" for these guys is a small hogi, coffee, and very small bag of chips which might be okay for a sit on your butt job, but not hard physical labor!!
[laughing] yah, though in that case it was a parent suing them for making their kid fat! Well gee, ya think maybe eating McDonalds on a daily or even several times a week is all that good for your health anyway? I mean come on! Their has been jokes about the calorie and fat content about McDonalds food for YEARS so how can someone NOT know??
Nope. Not me! First off, I don't like coffee and secound, if I don't have a cup-holder in my car I don't drink hot drinks while driving! And if I'm a passenger, I still NEVER EVER stick the damn thing between my legs. So there:)
Slashdot Mirror
See my post above where I talk about examples of how "taking it to the limit" has ruined talented athletes and even the sport itself.
This has already happened with dog sports..Why bring it into human sports as well?
Yes this is all very true.
But change in diet and excersize are ways of naturally enhancing one's skill. Gene therapy isn't. It's changing your *genes* to improve performance, which is just as much cheating IMHO as using a drug. It's not the negative side affects of steroids that bothers me when athletes use them but the fact that it is still in a lot of ways cheating. I am not saying they still don't do a lot of hard work to get where they are but it's still an unfair advantage.
In fact, speaking as a dog trainer this sort of thing has been seen in both field trials, Obedience trials and conformation..While not gene therapy per say, what has happened is inferior dogs are actually being bred because instead of allowing the talent or characteristic to come naturally throug the gene pool, they use forms of cheating.
For instance, in Yorkshire Terriers, the coat is supposed to be a color called "Blue and Tan" and is straight and silky in texture..Well instead of simply breeding for the color, many champion Yorkshire Terriers are actually *white* and very, very light golden. There is also wavy coats..Instead of breeding for that, breeders when going to show the dogs will die the coat with human hair coloring the blue and tan into the coat..Then they use a hand iron to straighten the coat. Of course this all takes hours, but really, should this dog with the wrong coat color and texture really be placed in a show over one with natural color? It's made it so most of the time, unless you know the dog personally, you won't know if breeding to the current famous Champoin is going to get the correct coat or faulty coat.
In Field Trials dogs used to have lots of natural talent because that's all you had to work with..Then one trainer Rex Carr invented the electric collar..Now said collar has been improved over the years but basically what they found as with this training aid you could make any dog do almost anything..You used to have a dog that LIKED jumping in the water to retrieve a duck cuz otherwise you were rather hard pressed to force the dog if it really didn't want to. With the electric collars, now people just "burn" the dog till it goes in..In the long run since it is now easier than traditional methods and one can get greater percision, and it tended to *ruin* trainable talented dogs, many hard-headed, dogs with little to no natural desire to retrieve, go in water etc, have gotten field champions and if one saw the end result of the electric collar use you might think "wow, that's a very talented dog!" but then you breed your dog to said champoin and hey, how come the pups don't retrieve? Where did this thick headedness come from?
Because what has happened is most field trial people have been selecting for dogs that "collar condition" the best..Conditioning the dog doesn't require the dog to think. Just react. And in the end most big name field champions are naturally not bright, but hard-headed, flakey (you can basically "re-wire" the dogs reactions against flightyness so instead of simply never training such a dog and not breeding it, they now train through it and the dog gets bred and throws it's defective personality genes into it's offspring), and some may or may not enjoy retrieving (hey if you can force them with electric stimulation does the dog really need to enjoy retrieveing? Used to be you had to have a dog that naturally LIKED to retrieve and worked with that)..So, one ends up with a highly inferior gene pool of working dogs, and since someone who doesn't use the electric collar can't force the kind of percision the electric collar trainers can make, the dogs with natural talent and brains (a dog trained without the collar has to have some brain cells to learn and think while out working, where as the collar dogs simply do everything like a robot with little to no thinking invloved..It's simply conditioned to act that way, and run a straight line..Most can't even hunt in a real hunting situation.) don't stand a chance against the e-collar dogs simply because percision standards have gone way up
>Nearly every atheletic
>competition I can think of involves a lot of >practiced skill -- the type of thing that will >improve the over-all posture and
>the kinetics of the athelete.
True. But some people are going to have the natural inborn talen towards those skills and some won't..With the added gene therapy, people who don't genetically have the talents can now have them..Perhaps even enhanced. My first post may have been a bit extreme as far as the number one player in his natural state (without therapy) being the worst.
Yes, a lot of work and dedication is needed to be a good athlete, but yes some of that can be replaced with natural talent.
Example, while not athletics, say "David" can naturally draw really well. He enjoys drawing so he does it a lot which with the practice allows him to be a even better artist with time.
"Bob" loves drawing. It's his favorite thing to do. he draws more often than Daivd even does..But Bob doesn't have the natural talent to draw. He takes art lessons, and is much better than he would be without the practice, but he may still never be as good at drawing as David.
The above may sound like a crock of shit, but I've knowen people who enjoy art or some other activety and though they have gotten better will never be great at that activety simply because they don't have the inborn talent.
I actually happen to be naturally very talented at drawing..Funny thing is, I don't hardly draw that much anymore and haven't for over 10 years which means I haven't put in the hardwork and dedication needed to improve my skill. I have never had art lessons, and was always "good" even as a kid.
Now I have knowen people who enjoy drawing and still paractice and have gone to art class and such and they still don't draw as well..I also have knowen people who are younger than me, less experience, no art class etc, and are much, much, better than I am.
Point is, practice really helps, but I would suspect the majority of it is actaully genetic and when allowed to be molded in the right environment and training developes to it's peak level.
BTW, I also have found that I can use a different meduim (chalk, oil paint, ink or whatever) that last time I tried using it was horrible and years later I try again and suddenly seem to just "know how" even though I hadn't even tinkered with that paticular medium in years..I have a hard time believing that isn't natural talent instead of simply "lots of practice".
You have some interesting points..But I think even if no health risks are involved it isn't fair to the other athletes if they end up having to go through gene therapy just to keep up with the competition...Also we would end up with lots less natural born/talented athletes in the long run and to a sports' fan, well..Lots of us would lose our respect for the players and the sport..
After all, what is more impressive, someone who works harder than anyone else on the team and is the secound best player or the number one player who without gene therapy would likely be the worst
player but is number one due to artifically made telent?
Just something for us all to think about.
Birth certificare as proof of US Citizenship, not age..
Was just at DMV running work errand last week and I noticed a sign saying after Feb 2004 they will no longer require this.. Sign certainly wasn't there in July and August though!
>my mum / gfriend
;D
Your mom is also your girlfriend? You sick, man!
> I neither believe, nor do I disbelieve that any particular game caused any particular kid to go psycho. I would have to spend
...
some time with the kid in question (and I only have a bare BSc in psychology, not anything really that qualifies me to make a
clinical assessment of anyone), before I could possibly form an opinion.
I can understand the logic in that statement. Now if only the authorities would have pyschological testing for this on kids that do this type of thing maybe they can actually start putting 2 and 2 together.
But I'd still be very surprised if the kid was even halfway sane to begin with.
> That being said, I can't exclude the possibility that violent media, induce, even in a small proportion of the population, a desire
to commit violent acts. Similarly I can't exclude the possibility, than in another proportion of the population the effect is
cathartic.
That possibly small population affected is either not sane or has some much bigger life issues that need taking care of because they sure as hell don't know how to cope properly.
I don't think it's rocket science to see that the kid's behavior was both cruel and of the childishness of a very young and uneducated person well below the age of 10 years...And likely unstable and not sane. Medication/therapy in high order!
> I do believe that the answers to that are to be found in empirical research, and not merely in opinions such as "I can't believe
video games do that, because they don't do it to me,", or, "because I like them and it's more convenient for me to believe they
don't have any such effects," or whatever
Yes I agree, their needs to be research done even though it seems obvious enough, but until then blame the actual commiters of the crime NOT their so called "excuse".
BTW, for the record, I don't play VICE City, have no desire to, and don't really no *why* the creators thought this was a Good Idea theme for a game but that doesn't make me the person who has authority to say "it's bad because it harms children"..Well, it's not even supposed to get in the hands of children to begin with.
And no, in all honesty I don't think it harms *normal* teenagers.
And it sure as hell doesn't harm mature adults since we've never had even ONE case of an adult doing and blaming such a game.
>Any person at 16 that is that childish (and I think they are just using the game as a "quick excuse" for stupid
behavior) should still be under a lot more supervision by ones parents and *obviously* are not mature enough to be
allowed any game that has fantasy ellements cuz those morons simply don't have a clue about "right", "wrong",
"play" and "real".
> And that's exactly the point, unfortunately it seems, that some of these people are not being adequatley supervised, but are
allowed access to games, that arguably, instruct them in violence.
Well, then it's the *parents* that need to be cracked down on isn't it? Can't expect society to do all the child rearing for us can we? They do enough of that all ready.
And yes, children are our future, but also childhood is a very short stage on one's life.
> And let's not forget there is violence and there is violence. An interesting empirical study might be the relation of the level of
fantasy (ie is a 'real-life' style violent game worse), to the criminogenic qualities of the game, assuming for a moment there are
any.
Good point. And who knows till research is done? But again it's about how well the kids can tell reality from fantasy and why the fantasy is not a Good Idea.
> And I define "not normal" as anyone with such a hair-trigger personality that a simple game can cause them to react
like a pyscho.
> Is this a 'simple' game, or a particularly violence inducing one? In any case let us hope that the poeple you define as 'normal'
far outweigh the people out there who you define as reacting like psychos
Of course I believe in individual responsability. On first read of your post I thought "good point" but then upon thinking about it, come on, do you REALLY believe the game caused them to go pyscho? I sure as hell don't. They're 16 years old not 5 year-olds. Any person at 16 that is that childish (and I think they are just using the game as a "quick excuse" for stupid behavior) should still be under a lot more supervision by ones parents and *obviously* are not mature enough to be allowed any game that has fantasy ellements cuz those morons simply don't have a clue about "right", "wrong", "play" and "real".
So it's either stupid parents, stupid kids, or both! Probably both.
The blame is on the kids/parents not the game company.
Oh, and as for that 1% of not normal kids. They grow up to be not normal adults and therefore IMO shouldn't be allowed loose in society to begin with.
And I define "not normal" as anyone with such a hair-trigger personality that a simple game can cause them to react like a pyscho.
Someone please mod Mantorps's post up as "insightful"!
I don't know why people would think a kid that was half-way normal might blow up or kill people from watching TV/playing video games, etc. I knew plenty of kids growing up that played Mortal Combat, DOOM, etc that never ever decided it would be "cool" to go off killing people. If such games/TV caused a kid or adult to become violent there is something seriously WRONG with that person..
And trust me, even if there were no violent video games or movies, kids that weren't normal would still think up these kind of things even if it just meant throwing rocks at drivers or bashing some other kid's head in with an axe.
More like provide free internet access so they can secretly spy on *you* :)
Nope. That's the Masochist Bunny
Eveready battery ?
:)
You boo-boo'd. Energizer Battery
Er, what do you think I had to do in there? All I wanted was to pee!
What is this, a Pay-Toilet? :)
I prefur not to use the barn. That one cow always watches me and it really creeps me out.
Hey thanks for telling me where you keep your money. Can I use your bathroom now? ;)
My mom was rather the opposite; I was assumed up to something unless proven otherwise, and the only way to get any
:(
private space, or to have anything truly my OWN that I didn't have to "share" with my younger sister, was to hide it
elsewhere entirely. Needless to say, this wasn't a great situation!
Oh, perfect way to train you to not only resent your mom but your sibling too
Kids need to learn to "share" but they also need their own stuff too.
I had very similar up-bringing only my older sister always had "things" but I always had to "share" everything. What's wrong with this picture??
Oh man. My mother would have loved to have THAT program :(
Instead she decided to "home school" my sister and I so she had constant control ALL day.
Now here I am at 21, trying to get my GED because I don't even have a High School diploma even though I still did 12 years of "schooling".
All I see, is just another way for parents to tighten chains on kids they obviously have a poor relationship with to begin with. After all, if the realtionship with your kid is good, you won't have to wonder how he acts at school because he'll trust you enough to let you know.
So instead of "spying" on your kids people should take the time to build some kind of quality relationship with them. Not saying the parent shouldn't be in charge, they should, but they also need to find a balance that allows the kid to feel trusted and not just living with a dictator who they feel doesn't even actually care about THEM just there own power (as the child sees it).
I find that very interesting being that the computer database at my local Library can pull up books under my name that I have checked out as far as 10 years ago that I even *know* about. Could go even farther, I don't know.
Reminds me of when my boss hires on a couple people from the Millionair's Club for grunt work. Per the Millionair's Club, you MUST provide a meal for all workers as well as pay them in cash and a ride from the bus station to your work.
Well the bus from Redmond to Seattle where they come from is at 5:00PM so my boss has to pack them all up by 4:30 and one time (once that I know of. Could be more than that but I haven't paid all that much attention to it.) she "didn't get around" to feeding the poor guys lunch till 3:00 in the afternoon! Not to mention "lunch" for these guys is a small hogi, coffee, and very small bag of chips which might be okay for a sit on your butt job, but not hard physical labor!!
Geez.
I can just imagine how "trigger-happy" people could become if it became a reality for everyday people:
"Your dog get in my yard one more time and I'll stun the bastard!"
Does this gun ever BSOD?? ;)
(I see Star Trek phasers comming to Real Life with these types of weapon in the works)
Until someone sues for falling in!
[laughing] yah, though in that case it was a parent suing them for making their kid fat! Well gee, ya think maybe eating McDonalds on a daily or even several times a week is all that good for your health anyway? I mean come on!
Their has been jokes about the calorie and fat content about McDonalds food for YEARS so how can someone NOT know??
Crap! I *knew* there was something sinister about McDonalds! Hell, I mean looks like someone always sat on your burger before you recieve it!
Nope. Not me! First off, I don't like coffee and secound, if I don't have a cup-holder in my car I don't drink hot drinks while driving! And if I'm a passenger, I still NEVER EVER stick the damn thing between my legs. :)
So there