That would be lewd behavior in the presence of the child. Easily described as a crime based on what he was DOING, not based on what he was THINKING. But thanks for playing.
Lol.. You really need to learn something about the law. Lewd conduct is an envelope charge pertaining to a class of offenses or actions that can create the offense. It's basically a title classification pertaining to specific actions. Under the same note, the TSA guard would have to be doing the same in order for it to be molestation as molestation is defined as the same containing lewd conduct. I'm not even sure why you are still arguing about this, like I said, your impossible made up on the spot definition that is totally different then everyone else' simply doesn't fit.
Actually, yes you are trying to argue that precisely – when said genital exam is done by a TSA security monkey in an airport.00
Why don't you try reading the rest of what was said before jumping head strong into something that only exists in your mind. I didn't say that, I said your extremely abnormal definition falls apart as soon as you use it generically. In other words, if you have to create a unique definition for the word Molestation in order to use it for your own purpose and if fails miserably when applies to any other similar situation, then it's a problem that you a simply fucking wrong.
The farce that is airport screening is not one of them.
So your saying that a Terrorist who is willing to kill your kids and himself would never- ever- take someone else's kids, pack them with explosives and pass them off as his own kid in the airport when trying to get on a plane to blow it up over a crowded city? I mean you spent so much time before saying you couldn't tell what someone was thinking, and now your saying that it would never happen as if you know exactly what they would be thinking.
You see, your entire idea of the way things should be simply doesn't line up with reality.
Lets first of all, get it clear that DUIs or even DWIs vary from state to state and due to jurisdictional limits, your CDL is not always governed by federal authority.
Now some states have transferred the federal laws to CDL drivers in a private vehicle but not all. The problem/difference comes in where the cop doesn't know that the CDL version of the legal limits apply and stays with the regular version. You can't be charged twice for the same offense and if they let you go, they aren't going to come back after you later just to say, I'm sorry we let you go when you were over the legal limit, now we are going to arrest and charge you. You also can't be charged for the federal law unless the federal jurisdiction applies and since drivers licenses are state jurisdiction, in your private car, state rules apply.
And of course, this is also mentioned in the last paragraph of the page you linked to.
No one was arguing if the courts have the final say or not, I said that congress makes due process by defining laws.
But hey, while you were going to Wikipedia, you should have looked up Due Process too. You see, the courts have absolutely no authority to make up laws, only Congress does. Courts are bound by law and the constitution and serve to administer the law in compliance with the constitution. The constitution gives congress the only ability to make law- except for some very rare occasions.
Congress has also changed due process on a number of occasions in the past and they will likely do it again. One of these examples is by limiting or extending the time limits on allowable appeals or even the limits on time after a crime has been committed and that you can be prosecuted for. Congress has taken away the insanity plea which was started by the courts (well, the plea wasn't started by them, but the courts interpreted that one couldn't have a mens rea if they didn't have control of their own mind which in effect allowed people to get away with heinous crimes- which congress put a stop to).
Another example is where they took all rights (constitutional or otherwise) away from members of the communist party. But I guess the most obvious example is where US law, created by congress, already sets out what is fair and equitable in the FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE There is also federal rules for civil procedures and appeals too.
They do that in the US too. Well, not with Cell phones that I know of, but with Radar detectors and such in places that have them outlaws.
I remember going to jail for stopping a cop in Virginia who was trying to destroy my radar detector. I got popped passing through from two states in which they are entirely legal to own and use (in many states, they put radars on emergency response vehicles with the sole purpose of alerting people with radar detectors of danger ahead).
But that doesn't explain why kids need to wear helmets on bikes now.
And yes, I still own three cars that didn't come with complete seat belts. A '48 chevy pickup without any seat belts at all, a '69 chevelle and a '71 ford "ranger"(f250) both of which don't have the shoulder belts.
SO you shouldn't be complaining when you're standing at the street corner waiting to cross and I drive past and your call gets dropped? I mean you can use those feet things and walk away from my car right?
Actually, congress can define due process. They make the laws and constitute the courts. There is no controlling authority over due process that is above congress outside of anything in the constitution.
Evidently, you need to go back to law school (or finish high school).
The law defines a property that isn't obvious. The law also defines the rights associated with that property. In this case, it's copyright protected material that the law gives the creator of owner exclusive control over the duplicating and distribution of said property.
Existing law and existing court orders have shut down impending copyright and patent violations while the legalities are being sorted out. There will be a process in which someone can contest the removal- that's where the materials believed to infringe copyright will turn into actual materials that infringe copyright.
This is nothing different then existing due process outside of the entire internet scheme.
This didn't pass the senate, it came out of a senate comity. It now needs to find itself a floor vote before it passes the senate. There are 5 times as many senators then those that voted for it.
Also, everyone you know does not really mean the majority of the population. The vast majority of the population probably don't even know about it, or don't know the ramifications that could be associated with it. I'm betting that like most other things, the majority of the population is either ignorant of the subject/bill or agnostic to it.
only.04 instead of the normal.08. Even in a private vehicle. A class A license changes the BAC level for all situations. --
Sort of. It depends on if the cop making the stop knows what he is doing or not. I've seen people blow.05 on the portable meters with a class A license but in their private car and get a warning.
On the other hand, in addition to the.04, your supposed to wait 4 or 8 hours after your last drink with any measurable alcohol in it before driving. So I suppose that even with a.01 BAC and admitting to drinking half a glass of wine with dinner 2 hours ago could be enough for a DUI.
It's not likely that it could distinguish between the person standing at the street corner waiting on a red light to cross or the GPS units or onstar or whatever else either.
Can you see it, they require cars like this and the women getting carjacked can't even call 911 now. Or worse yet, some thug is driving down the street and all he has to do is leave his car running to stop you from reporting his unlawful activity like mugging you.
Yea, I'm thinking someone hasn't quite thought this one through yet. Unfortunately, since it's the government, they probably won't until after it happens.
If the exam was necessary and useful, no. If the exam was unnecessary (and I really can’t fathom very many instances where you’d need to have a genital exam done on a 3-year-old), yes. It has nothing to do with what the doctor is thinking. Neither I nor anyone else can read the doctor’s mind anyway.
So if a doctor was touching his own genitals in an attempt to gain excitement when examining a 3 year old's genitals, it wouldn't be molestation because you would have no way of knowing what the doc was thinking? Oh yea, that's right, It has nothing to do with what the doctor is thinking.
And yes, there are valid reasons to examine the genitals of a 3 year old. I know a kid who needed a hernia operation after attempting to lift his parents bowling ball bags. They knew something happened because his pecker hurt but lacked a sophisticated enough vocabulary to explain the entire problem.
Are you really trying to argue that a doctor who routinely did completely unnecessary full genital exams on 3-year-old patients would not be guilty of sexual molestation? I don’t care why he’s doing them – whether to get his rocks off later or to be an arrogant ass who does invasive procedures just because he thinks it’s his privilege – it matters not in the least.
Actually, no I'm not trying to argue that. What I'm doing is showing to you and all the idiots who believe the same as you that there are legitimate reasons to examine the genitalia of a 3 year old or anyone else for that matter. This examination does not equate to molestation by default. This is the exact same for a policy that some underpaid and under-trained security guard has to follow. IT doesn't not equal molestation just because the screening was done.
By the years training and experience, I think he was meaning something in context with being the best scientists or something verses becoming a stellar athlete above others in the same field. You can be an astronaut in about the same amount of time it takes to go from a rookie not well known to a famous sports player. In the other fields, it takes decades of applied knowledge and the ability to use that knowledge to become known on the same level.
This is probably because of media exposure involved in it. In sports and being an astronaut, you get a lot more media coverage then someone working in a lab to figure out way to build stronger bridges using less material or someone who notices something new in the sky at night. The opportunities to shine and become famous/well known/a hero are simply more often for astronauts then most of the other professions mentioned.
The problem is that the US was founded as a confederation. The declaration of independence made thirteen states from the colonies. A state is a country in most of the world which is why you call your state a province.
After the Declaration of independence, we formed a confederacy that lasted until the constitution was developed. It addressed issues that cropped up in the confederacy like laying duties on ships from other states in order to bolster your own economy. If you look at the history and what the constitution was intending to address, you would see it is more like a confederation similar to the EU.
that is because you are unlearned in history, and very naive in ways of life. those who dont take lessons from history, are bound to repeat it.
And this stops you from leading by example how? I mean seriously, if you want to do something, you don't have to wait for everyone else to do it, or even try to force them to. It sounds to me like you're just trying to justify some ideology here.
everyone has to be made do it for a very simple reason:
if there is ANY country on earth, in which private citizens are allowed to gain huge wealth and dominance over others, those groups will eventually dominate entire country, steer it in the direction they want, and make entire country do whatever their interests require.
Ah.. SO here it is. There is a flawed ideology behind it and your motives are not to help others out as you pretend but to stop people from grasping wealth and power. Well, it's good that you finally admitted it. And BTW, your concept is somewhat fallacious.
recent case in point : united states iraq adventure, afghanistan adventure. 20th century is full of u.s., as a country, moving to protect its private groups' interests with its OWN citizens' blood, and at the expense of others. basically installing 12+ puppet dictators in 3rd world countries, all of which are wanted for crimes against humanity due to genocides they implemented, and in 2nd and 1st world countries, establishing of shit like this :
Oh, so your a conspiracy theorist too. Well, it's also good to know that your entire political and social philosophy is pretty much based around ignorance.
not a single american citizen, not even the people who were living in countries in which the clones of the organization above was founded by nato (which is basically usa), were aware of the presence of those organizations, the assassinations, fraud, scam, smuggling, and terrorism they did.
ALL was done to make sure that the 'ally' countries 'stayed true' to 'western ideals'. which, basically ended up as the interests of private groups in united states. not even the benefits of the citizens of usa en masse.
Yea, your right, and everyone else is wrong right? I mean it's not like Mussolini and communism and WWII told us anything. It's not like it we didn't learn anything from Hilter gaining power by basically intentionally ignoring the results of WWI. But hey, In you mind it's a bad thing that we had people who stopped the trouble makers from creating another blood bent dictatorship and probably another world war. Right? Yea, Right.
you should have seen my point by now. even citizens of america themselves were aware of what was going on, and even in rare cases they were aware, they were able to do little to prevent it. countless people died in vietnam, billions spent, then afghanistan, iraq. in the cases u.s. government was not able to directly intervene for the sake of private interests, corporate powers themselves spent money in other countries to do it - funding civil wars, instigation, even at times terrorism.
so what's your point? Are you saying that we should have left an ally in South Vietnam become completely overrun with communist who were working to overthrow a democratically elected government in order to institute their own government? You know, like the communist attempt in America in the late 1910's? Are you saying that we should have ignored Afghanistan's purposeful harboring of terrorist that inflicted thousands of casualties on American citizens? Should we have just let everything go as usual so Al Qeada could train, plot and plan more and more terrorist attacks that were designed to kill and injure the very people you already admitted "were able to do little to prevent" any
Then it amounts to thought-crime. I don’t believe in thought-crimes.
So then a doctor giving a child a physical examination would be molesting them right? I mean if intent of the act, or mens rea cannot be taken into account, then our entire criminal justice system is completely wrong as most of it, certainly if there is jail time involve, revolves around the intent to commit a crime- or the thought of a crime which you do not believe in.
Sure you would, if you’re next in line. Get ready to bend over when it’s your turn.
Actually, I only fly private planes and do not take commercial flights. I don't fly that often to begin with so it's not that important. However, I have stood up for police being excessively brutal to suspects, I have even been arrested, tazered and beaten myself when I took a baton away from an overzealous cop who was beating a handcuffed suspect that was laying on his back simply because he wouldn't do something the cop ordered him to do (I don't think it was physically possible for the guy to complete the cop's order being handcuffed).
You have options outside of following the system. If all you can do is bitch about it on the internet and assign non-existent claims to it in order to attempt to inflate the absurdity of the policy, you are doing less then you accused me of.
When the “security checks” involve rubbing the genitals of a crying 3-year-old, if they don’t consider that sexual molestation they’re insane. And so are you.
Yea, just like it's molestation when a doctor examine the same crying 3 year old. Fuck dude, if you can't live within reality and follow along with the definitions of words, why don't you just stay home and give up? I mean seriously, so far your best argument is "I don't believe in how the current criminal justice system works" and Yea huh, because I said so and if you don't agree, your a monster too. We are not in third grade and this is not the school playground. Grow the fuck up.
I've never met a Mormon or Jehovah's Witness missionary who was anything less than polite, well-mannered, and respectful,
That's sort of the problem. If you return politeness in kind without converting to their religion, they keep coming back. It's a hassle and time consuming and like most other annoyances, happens when you would rather be doing something else. But you don't really want to be rude or nasty to them as they typically aren't to you. It makes it difficult to creatively get rid of them without hurting their feelings.
Now the JVs in your area might not be as assertive in others, but they can be down right persistent and somewhat vicious. This is especially true when they realize you don't want to hear what they are saying. But there is a Watchtower teaching/interpretation of the bible that actually encourages some of these people to be rude in order to seek the grace of God (It's an interpretation of Matthew 5:11-12 in which they think they are securing a great reward in heaven if people cuss and them and such). It might be a matter of brainwashing or inept training, confusions or something, but it's quite common for it to happen where they are more then rude.
You have to remember, the Jehovah's witness group is large and spans all around the world to some degree. In my area, I have seen probably 10-15 different door to door salesmen working for them. And with about everything else, you don't hear or remember as much about the good deeds people do as you do hear about the bad ones. Just watch the evening news if you doubt this.
Slashdot Mirror
But it's not and until you convince the government to change the laws, those drugs and other things are checked for by customs.
You forgot to add a bunch of Macgyver episodes to that list.
they're not always as you see them either.
get over yourself
Lol.. You really need to learn something about the law. Lewd conduct is an envelope charge pertaining to a class of offenses or actions that can create the offense. It's basically a title classification pertaining to specific actions. Under the same note, the TSA guard would have to be doing the same in order for it to be molestation as molestation is defined as the same containing lewd conduct. I'm not even sure why you are still arguing about this, like I said, your impossible made up on the spot definition that is totally different then everyone else' simply doesn't fit.
Why don't you try reading the rest of what was said before jumping head strong into something that only exists in your mind. I didn't say that, I said your extremely abnormal definition falls apart as soon as you use it generically. In other words, if you have to create a unique definition for the word Molestation in order to use it for your own purpose and if fails miserably when applies to any other similar situation, then it's a problem that you a simply fucking wrong.
So your saying that a Terrorist who is willing to kill your kids and himself would never- ever- take someone else's kids, pack them with explosives and pass them off as his own kid in the airport when trying to get on a plane to blow it up over a crowded city? I mean you spent so much time before saying you couldn't tell what someone was thinking, and now your saying that it would never happen as if you know exactly what they would be thinking.
You see, your entire idea of the way things should be simply doesn't line up with reality.
Lets first of all, get it clear that DUIs or even DWIs vary from state to state and due to jurisdictional limits, your CDL is not always governed by federal authority.
That said, the FMCSA legal BAC limit is applied only when a CDL commercial motor vehicle operator who is required to have a CDL is deemed to be driving under the influence of alcohol and subject to the disqualification sanctions in the Federal regulations. You are not subjected to the disqualification sanctions in the Federal regulations in your private non-commercial car.
Now some states have transferred the federal laws to CDL drivers in a private vehicle but not all. The problem/difference comes in where the cop doesn't know that the CDL version of the legal limits apply and stays with the regular version. You can't be charged twice for the same offense and if they let you go, they aren't going to come back after you later just to say, I'm sorry we let you go when you were over the legal limit, now we are going to arrest and charge you. You also can't be charged for the federal law unless the federal jurisdiction applies and since drivers licenses are state jurisdiction, in your private car, state rules apply.
And of course, this is also mentioned in the last paragraph of the page you linked to.
No one was arguing if the courts have the final say or not, I said that congress makes due process by defining laws.
But hey, while you were going to Wikipedia, you should have looked up Due Process too. You see, the courts have absolutely no authority to make up laws, only Congress does. Courts are bound by law and the constitution and serve to administer the law in compliance with the constitution. The constitution gives congress the only ability to make law- except for some very rare occasions.
Congress has also changed due process on a number of occasions in the past and they will likely do it again. One of these examples is by limiting or extending the time limits on allowable appeals or even the limits on time after a crime has been committed and that you can be prosecuted for. Congress has taken away the insanity plea which was started by the courts (well, the plea wasn't started by them, but the courts interpreted that one couldn't have a mens rea if they didn't have control of their own mind which in effect allowed people to get away with heinous crimes- which congress put a stop to).
Another example is where they took all rights (constitutional or otherwise) away from members of the communist party. But I guess the most obvious example is where US law, created by congress, already sets out what is fair and equitable in the FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE There is also federal rules for civil procedures and appeals too.
They do that in the US too. Well, not with Cell phones that I know of, but with Radar detectors and such in places that have them outlaws.
I remember going to jail for stopping a cop in Virginia who was trying to destroy my radar detector. I got popped passing through from two states in which they are entirely legal to own and use (in many states, they put radars on emergency response vehicles with the sole purpose of alerting people with radar detectors of danger ahead).
But that doesn't explain why kids need to wear helmets on bikes now.
And yes, I still own three cars that didn't come with complete seat belts. A '48 chevy pickup without any seat belts at all, a '69 chevelle and a '71 ford "ranger"(f250) both of which don't have the shoulder belts.
SO you shouldn't be complaining when you're standing at the street corner waiting to cross and I drive past and your call gets dropped? I mean you can use those feet things and walk away from my car right?
Actually, congress can define due process. They make the laws and constitute the courts. There is no controlling authority over due process that is above congress outside of anything in the constitution.
Evidently, you need to go back to law school (or finish high school).
The law defines a property that isn't obvious. The law also defines the rights associated with that property. In this case, it's copyright protected material that the law gives the creator of owner exclusive control over the duplicating and distribution of said property.
Existing law and existing court orders have shut down impending copyright and patent violations while the legalities are being sorted out. There will be a process in which someone can contest the removal- that's where the materials believed to infringe copyright will turn into actual materials that infringe copyright.
This is nothing different then existing due process outside of the entire internet scheme.
This didn't pass the senate, it came out of a senate comity. It now needs to find itself a floor vote before it passes the senate. There are 5 times as many senators then those that voted for it.
Also, everyone you know does not really mean the majority of the population. The vast majority of the population probably don't even know about it, or don't know the ramifications that could be associated with it. I'm betting that like most other things, the majority of the population is either ignorant of the subject/bill or agnostic to it.
Sort of. It depends on if the cop making the stop knows what he is doing or not. I've seen people blow .05 on the portable meters with a class A license but in their private car and get a warning.
On the other hand, in addition to the .04, your supposed to wait 4 or 8 hours after your last drink with any measurable alcohol in it before driving. So I suppose that even with a .01 BAC and admitting to drinking half a glass of wine with dinner 2 hours ago could be enough for a DUI.
It's not likely that it could distinguish between the person standing at the street corner waiting on a red light to cross or the GPS units or onstar or whatever else either.
Can you see it, they require cars like this and the women getting carjacked can't even call 911 now. Or worse yet, some thug is driving down the street and all he has to do is leave his car running to stop you from reporting his unlawful activity like mugging you.
Yea, I'm thinking someone hasn't quite thought this one through yet. Unfortunately, since it's the government, they probably won't until after it happens.
So if a doctor was touching his own genitals in an attempt to gain excitement when examining a 3 year old's genitals, it wouldn't be molestation because you would have no way of knowing what the doc was thinking? Oh yea, that's right, It has nothing to do with what the doctor is thinking.
And yes, there are valid reasons to examine the genitals of a 3 year old. I know a kid who needed a hernia operation after attempting to lift his parents bowling ball bags. They knew something happened because his pecker hurt but lacked a sophisticated enough vocabulary to explain the entire problem.
Actually, no I'm not trying to argue that. What I'm doing is showing to you and all the idiots who believe the same as you that there are legitimate reasons to examine the genitalia of a 3 year old or anyone else for that matter. This examination does not equate to molestation by default. This is the exact same for a policy that some underpaid and under-trained security guard has to follow. IT doesn't not equal molestation just because the screening was done.
Have problems with humor and reality much? Oh Well, I guess it's a good thing I never quite thought highly of you either.
This is the new age where all that is forgotten.
what's that saying? Oh yea, don't hate the player, hate the game.
By the years training and experience, I think he was meaning something in context with being the best scientists or something verses becoming a stellar athlete above others in the same field. You can be an astronaut in about the same amount of time it takes to go from a rookie not well known to a famous sports player. In the other fields, it takes decades of applied knowledge and the ability to use that knowledge to become known on the same level.
This is probably because of media exposure involved in it. In sports and being an astronaut, you get a lot more media coverage then someone working in a lab to figure out way to build stronger bridges using less material or someone who notices something new in the sky at night. The opportunities to shine and become famous/well known/a hero are simply more often for astronauts then most of the other professions mentioned.
His kid probably asked the question 4 and a half years ago and it took this long to get published on slashdot. His math is probably good.
The problem is that the US was founded as a confederation. The declaration of independence made thirteen states from the colonies. A state is a country in most of the world which is why you call your state a province.
After the Declaration of independence, we formed a confederacy that lasted until the constitution was developed. It addressed issues that cropped up in the confederacy like laying duties on ships from other states in order to bolster your own economy. If you look at the history and what the constitution was intending to address, you would see it is more like a confederation similar to the EU.
And this stops you from leading by example how? I mean seriously, if you want to do something, you don't have to wait for everyone else to do it, or even try to force them to. It sounds to me like you're just trying to justify some ideology here.
Ah.. SO here it is. There is a flawed ideology behind it and your motives are not to help others out as you pretend but to stop people from grasping wealth and power. Well, it's good that you finally admitted it. And BTW, your concept is somewhat fallacious.
Oh, so your a conspiracy theorist too. Well, it's also good to know that your entire political and social philosophy is pretty much based around ignorance.
Yea, your right, and everyone else is wrong right? I mean it's not like Mussolini and communism and WWII told us anything. It's not like it we didn't learn anything from Hilter gaining power by basically intentionally ignoring the results of WWI. But hey, In you mind it's a bad thing that we had people who stopped the trouble makers from creating another blood bent dictatorship and probably another world war. Right? Yea, Right.
so what's your point? Are you saying that we should have left an ally in South Vietnam become completely overrun with communist who were working to overthrow a democratically elected government in order to institute their own government? You know, like the communist attempt in America in the late 1910's? Are you saying that we should have ignored Afghanistan's purposeful harboring of terrorist that inflicted thousands of casualties on American citizens? Should we have just let everything go as usual so Al Qeada could train, plot and plan more and more terrorist attacks that were designed to kill and injure the very people you already admitted "were able to do little to prevent" any
So then a doctor giving a child a physical examination would be molesting them right? I mean if intent of the act, or mens rea cannot be taken into account, then our entire criminal justice system is completely wrong as most of it, certainly if there is jail time involve, revolves around the intent to commit a crime- or the thought of a crime which you do not believe in.
Actually, I only fly private planes and do not take commercial flights. I don't fly that often to begin with so it's not that important. However, I have stood up for police being excessively brutal to suspects, I have even been arrested, tazered and beaten myself when I took a baton away from an overzealous cop who was beating a handcuffed suspect that was laying on his back simply because he wouldn't do something the cop ordered him to do (I don't think it was physically possible for the guy to complete the cop's order being handcuffed).
You have options outside of following the system. If all you can do is bitch about it on the internet and assign non-existent claims to it in order to attempt to inflate the absurdity of the policy, you are doing less then you accused me of.
Yea, just like it's molestation when a doctor examine the same crying 3 year old. Fuck dude, if you can't live within reality and follow along with the definitions of words, why don't you just stay home and give up? I mean seriously, so far your best argument is "I don't believe in how the current criminal justice system works" and Yea huh, because I said so and if you don't agree, your a monster too. We are not in third grade and this is not the school playground. Grow the fuck up.
doesn't this say that you should help those you see in need of help and not that you should shuck it off to society to do the same?
anyways, this doesn't say to be your brothers keeper. It says to help someone when they are down.
That's sort of the problem. If you return politeness in kind without converting to their religion, they keep coming back. It's a hassle and time consuming and like most other annoyances, happens when you would rather be doing something else. But you don't really want to be rude or nasty to them as they typically aren't to you. It makes it difficult to creatively get rid of them without hurting their feelings.
Now the JVs in your area might not be as assertive in others, but they can be down right persistent and somewhat vicious. This is especially true when they realize you don't want to hear what they are saying. But there is a Watchtower teaching/interpretation of the bible that actually encourages some of these people to be rude in order to seek the grace of God (It's an interpretation of Matthew 5:11-12 in which they think they are securing a great reward in heaven if people cuss and them and such). It might be a matter of brainwashing or inept training, confusions or something, but it's quite common for it to happen where they are more then rude.
You have to remember, the Jehovah's witness group is large and spans all around the world to some degree. In my area, I have seen probably 10-15 different door to door salesmen working for them. And with about everything else, you don't hear or remember as much about the good deeds people do as you do hear about the bad ones. Just watch the evening news if you doubt this.