I thought I was the only one really annoyed by button pounders. Now I know I am not alone. From here on I intend to be an anti-pounding vigilante. Anytime I witness an obnoxious button pounder, I will light up a big, cheap White Owl and blow the equally obnoxious smoke at the pounder. Other ideas gladly appreciated. Thanks, Ray
Warning to Button Pounders
I thought I was the only one really annoyed by button pounders.
Now I know I am not alone. From here on I intend to be an anti-
pounding vigilante. Anytime I witness an obnoxious button pounder,
I will light up a big, cheap White Owl and blow the equally
obnoxious smoke at the pounder. Other ideas gladly appreciated.
Thanks, Ray
Good Heavens, Ray, that will punish the entire
casino. PLEASE, PLEASE, think of something else.....ANYTHING ELSE!
Thanks, Babe
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rayzp@j..." <rayzp@j...> wrote:
This one seems akin to going after a fly with a machine gun. Lots of
collateral damage. Personally I rate cigar smokers one notch ahead of
button pounders in the obnoxious category.
Dick
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rayzp@j..." <rayzp@j...> wrote:
I thought I was the only one really annoyed by button pounders. Now
I know I am not alone. From here on I intend to be an anti-pounding
vigilante. Anytime I witness an obnoxious button pounder, I will
light up a big, cheap White Owl and blow the equally obnoxious smoke
at the pounder. Other ideas gladly appreciated. Thanks, Ray
I wish I could remember what brand it was some guy was smoking next to me at the Ameristar a couple of months ago. The smoke was green and it was melting the varnish off the bar. How ANYONE could inhale that and think, "Shoot, this won't hurt me" is beyond me.
carlos
···
"rayzp@juno.com" <rayzp@juno.com> wrote:
I thought I was the only one really annoyed by button pounders. Now I know I am not alone. From here on I intend to be an anti-pounding vigilante. Anytime I witness an obnoxious button pounder, I will light up a big, cheap White Owl and blow the equally obnoxious smoke at the pounder. Other ideas gladly appreciated. Thanks, Ray
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Anybody who blows smoke in my face , gets a black eye - no excuses !
regards...Tom
···
----- Original Message -----
From: <rayzp@juno.com>
To: <vpfree@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 8:08 PM
Subject: [vpFREE] Warning to Button Pounders
I thought I was the only one really annoyed by button pounders. Now I know
I am not alone. From here on I intend to be an anti-pounding vigilante.
Anytime I witness an obnoxious button pounder, I will light up a big, cheap
White Owl and blow the equally obnoxious smoke at the pounder. Other ideas
gladly appreciated. Thanks, Ray
vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm
Yahoo! Groups Links
tomflush wrote:
Anybody who blows smoke in my face , gets a black eye - no excuses !
regards...Tom
Somehow I don't think that your claim of self-defense is going to prevail in a criminal trial for battery, which ought to be a slam dunk for the prosecutor if the eye-in-the-sky records it. ... and then there is the risk of a civil lawsuit against you. I'm therefore pretty sure that you must either be joking, grossly exaggerating, or horribly ignorant. Now, 'accidentally' spilling your drink in the smoker's lap is another matter; I can't imagine any criminal charges or a civil lawsuit resulting. Ya gots to use your noggin for more than vp strategy. 
Cheers.
Bill Velek
Somehow I don't think that your claim of self-defense is going to
prevail in a criminal trial for battery, which ought to be a slam dunk
for the prosecutor if the eye-in-the-sky records it. ... and then there
is the risk of a civil lawsuit against you.
Bill - me thinks you are the one who is ignorant of the law. Walking up to
somebody, and blowing smoke into their face is prima face evidence of
aggression , and can be considered grounds for assault.
regards...Tom
tomflush wrote:
Somehow I don't think that your claim of self-defense is going to
prevail in a criminal trial for battery, which ought to be a slam dunk
for the prosecutor if the eye-in-the-sky records it. ... and then there
is the risk of a civil lawsuit against you.Bill - me thinks you are the one who is ignorant of the law. Walking up to
somebody, and blowing smoke into their face is prima face evidence of
aggression , and can be considered grounds for assault.regards...Tom
Tom, you are such a kidder, you wild and crazy guy. Naturally I must
admit that I don't know the law in jurisdictions outside of Arkansas
where I've been a judge for over 18 years now, so I could _possibly_ be
wrong about AC and Vegas, etc. But most jurisdictions follow certain
general principles of law, such as not allowing excessive force and even
requiring flight when there is an avenue of escape (except from your own
home). This means that -- at least here in Arkansas -- if I walk up and
punch you in the face and then immediately back off, that you do not
have a right to come back at me in retaliation. When I punch you, I am
guilty of battery; if I stop at that point and do not continue to pursue
you or attempt to strike you again, but you strike me back anyway, then
you too are guilty of battery. That is the law here, and I've tried a
number of cases where immature people have gotten into fist fights and
both individuals have been convicted regardless of who started the
fight. Civilized society just isn't going to tolerate adults getting
into fist fights like some children or high school kids. And if you
ever appear in my court and try to argue that you punched someone in the
face simply because 'they exhibited evidence of aggression by blowing
smoke in your face', ... well ... I hope you bring along your toothbrush
because I'm more than likely going to send you to jail. Incidentally,
making that sort of an argument is also prima facie evidence of being a
smart ass. :-/
Now, that is not to say that the person blowing smoke in your face isn't
possibly guilty of a crime, but rather that it does not amount to enough
for you to retaliate with physical force. And if it would, how much
force could you use? Could you break a beer bottle over his head? ...
or kick him in the groin? I'm sure there will probably be a number of
folks who will disagree with what I've just said -- and perhaps you will
persist in your beliefs -- but I hope that none of you will learn the
hard way that I am right.
As has been often said: "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing." I
hope that no one thinks for even a second that they have a right to
punch someone for blowing smoke in their face. That is just insane.
Cheers.
Bill Velek
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Walking up to
somebody, and blowing smoke into their face is prima face evidence
of
aggression , and can be considered grounds for assault.
regards...Tom
Ok, now what do you suggest when it just kind of wafts your way.
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "tomflush" <tomflush@n...> wrote:
Tom, you are such a kidder, you wild and crazy guy. Naturally I
must
admit that I don't know the law in jurisdictions outside of
Arkansas
Ah, that hotbed of liberal thinking. That source of everything
cutting-edge in societal trends.
where I've been a judge for over 18 years now, so I could
_possibly_ be
wrong about AC and Vegas, etc. But most jurisdictions follow
certain
general principles of law, such as not allowing excessive force
There is a common-law concept, which predates our legal code by
several centuries but is nonetheless embedded in our current
practices and beliefs, that it is permissible to answer aggressive
force in kind and in like measure EVEN IF there IS a flight avenue.
In reality, if someone punches me in the face, no one would expect
me to take the only "legal" alternatives open to me, i.e., whipping
out my cell phone and calling the police to file an assault
complaint, or fleeing out the back door to escape. It is accepted
that I have the right to retaliate, even if P.C. courts and judges
think they can stop fights from occuring by imposing some kind of
military-academy-style honor code on the population at large.
and even
requiring flight when there is an avenue of escape (except from
your own
home). This means that -- at least here in Arkansas -- if I walk
up and
punch you in the face and then immediately back off, that you do
not
have a right to come back at me in retaliation.
Let's see how many people, in practice, agree with that one!
When I punch you, I am
guilty of battery; if I stop at that point and do not continue to
pursue
you or attempt to strike you again, but you strike me back anyway,
then
you too are guilty of battery. That is the law here, and I've
tried a
number of cases where immature people have gotten into fist fights
and
both individuals have been convicted regardless of who started the
fight.
This is stupid. Obviously the person whos throws the first punch is
far guiltier than the one who responds in kind.
Civilized society just isn't going to tolerate adults getting
into fist fights like some children or high school kids. And if
you
ever appear in my court and try to argue that you punched someone
in the
face simply because 'they exhibited evidence of aggression by
blowing
smoke in your face', ... well ... I hope you bring along your
toothbrush
because I'm more than likely going to send you to jail.
Once again, response to provocation/aggression is not only natural,
but tolerated in most people's minds. I realize in the utopia that
some people envision, violence is so abhorrent that responding to
violence with violence is equally abhorrent.
THIS ONLY MAKES SENSE IF SOCIETY ENSURES THAT A PERSON"S RIGHTS ARE
PROTECTED. In reality it can't do so, and doesn't. If someone acts
aggressively toward me, in your worldview, I have to abandon the
premises. If someone socks me in the face I have to run away and
call the police. Right. Are the police handy enough that I can count
on them to be there instantly? Who safeguards MY rights?
Incidentally,
making that sort of an argument is also prima facie evidence of
being a
smart ass. :-/
Horseshit. It's asserting one's claim to the right to be left alone.
Now, that is not to say that the person blowing smoke in your face
isn't
possibly guilty of a crime, but rather that it does not amount to
enough
for you to retaliate with physical force. And if it would, how
much
force could you use? Could you break a beer bottle over his
head? ...
or kick him in the groin?
Personally, I think you should be able to empty a whole clip from a
handgun into him, and then set him on fire. Just MHO.
I'm sure there will probably be a number of
folks who will disagree with what I've just said -- and perhaps
you will
persist in your beliefs -- but I hope that none of you will learn
the
hard way that I am right.
Not "right"---just wielding enough power to impose your beliefs on
others. A HUGE distinction!!
As has been often said: "A little knowledge is a dangerous
thing." I
hope that no one thinks for even a second that they have a right
to
punch someone for blowing smoke in their face. That is just
insane.
Boy, I hope I'm never in your court. You'd hit me with a contempt
citation for sure (another power that should not be given to judges;
when a judge is an ass, a person should be able to tell said judge
that he is indeed an ass, without fear of retaliation).
rockofjello333 wrote:
snip
Personally, I think you should be able to empty a whole clip from a
handgun into him, and then set him on fire. Just MHO.
As a strong advocate of our 2nd Amendment rights, I'll respectfully ask you to refrain from making such idiotic statements -- even if meant as a joke (which, incidentally, should have been signified in some way). It's already hard enough to protect our right to bear arms without folks like you making very foolish statements that can be used by gun-grabbers as justification for their crusade. And I'm being very serious. If you do have a gun and expect to be able to keep it, you ought to be a bit more mindful of what you say in regard to guns. And if, per chance, you really did mean what you said, you ought to seek counseling immediately.
I'm rather amazed that we find ourselves at this point in this discussion after I criticized the idea of punching someone in the face just because they blew smoke in your face. Well, what if they called your wife a pig? Same thing, I guess. How about it they cut in front of you in line? ... or maybe you finally get fed up with them pounding on the vp machine buttons?
Whatever. I'm finished with this thread.
Bill Velek
rockofjello333 wrote:
snip
> Personally, I think you should be able to empty a whole clip
from a handgun into him, and then set him on fire. Just MHO.
As a strong advocate of our 2nd Amendment rights, I'll
respectfully ask you to refrain from making such idiotic statements -
- even if meant as a joke (which, incidentally, should have been
signified in some way).
Obviously, you're not nearly as passionate about the FIRST Amendment.
Such signifying, I thought, was unnecessary, since all but the
terminally irony-proof ought to have realized that I was indeed
joking.
For the benefit of those people, I will try to devise an "emoticon"
to follow such statements, that resembles a tongue in cheek.
HOWEVER, I do feel that someone who smokes in public has such a
callous disregard for the rights of others, that I wouldn't be all
that upset if somebody DID empty a handgun into a smoker after being
told, for the umpteenth time, to "f*** off" when he or she dares to
ask the smoker not to wave his pigarette in their face.
It's already hard enough to protect our right to bear arms without
folks like you making very foolish statements that can be used by
gun-grabbers as justification for their crusade. And I'm being very
serious. If you do have a gun and expect to be able to keep it, you
ought to be a bit more mindful of what you say in regard to guns.
And if, per chance, you really did mean what you said, you ought to
seek counseling immediately.
I don't own a gun, have never fired a gun, and don't think it's a
very smart idea to own one. Furthermore, the Second Amendment
doesn't grant me the right to do so. It's obvious to anyone who
OBJECTIVEKLY reads that amendment that the right referred to is a
COLLECTIVE right, and refers to raising a militia. It's rather
amazing how the gun nuts can twist this to mean that everyone gets
to own his own personal arsenal.
I'm rather amazed that we find ourselves at this point in this
discussion after I criticized the idea of punching someone in the
face just because they blew smoke in your face. Well, what if they
called your wife a pig? Same thing, I guess. How about it they cut
in front of you in line? ... or maybe you finally get fed up with
them pounding on the vp machine buttons?
Well, tarnation, Bill, I'd back off from immediate confrontation in
these cases, becuz thanx to the gloriosky Second Amendementment, ah
can just wait fer him in the parkin' lot an' hose down his pickemup
truck with mah trusty AK-47.
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Bill Velek <billvelek@a...> wrote:
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deuceswild1000"
<deuceswild1000@y...> wrote:
Walking up to
> somebody, and blowing smoke into their face is prima face
evidence
of
> aggression , and can be considered grounds for assault.
>
> regards...TomOk, now what do you suggest when it just kind of wafts your way?
Boys, Boys, PLEASE!! Get off this ridiculous thread!
In a civilized nation, and I do think the USA is still civilized,
one is entitled to have a difference of opinion about both hot-
button subjects (Tobacco usuage/smoke & Gun control) without
resorting to vituperative name calling.
Please, let us not delibrately blow smoke at fellow vp players nor
punch or shoot each other, if smoke comes our way. Let us rather,
as politely as possible, try to reason with the offender. And above
all, let us return to the subject of this forum, VIDEO POKER!
Respectfully, Babe
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "tomflush" <tomflush@n...> wrote:
rockofjello333 wrote:
> rockofjello333 wrote:
>
> snip
>
> > Personally, I think you should be able to empty a whole clip
from a handgun into him, and then set him on fire. Just MHO.
>
> As a strong advocate of our 2nd Amendment rights, I'll
respectfully ask you to refrain from making such idiotic statements -
- even if meant as a joke (which, incidentally, should have been
signified in some way).Obviously, you're not nearly as passionate about the FIRST Amendment.
That doesn't make any sense. How have I indicated that? ... by asking that a person make their true intent as clear as possible?
Such signifying, I thought, was unnecessary, since all but the
terminally irony-proof ought to have realized that I was indeed
joking.
Well, I pretty-much assumed you were joking, although there are certainly nut-cases on the Internet so assumptions aren't always safe to make, but my point is that the liberal gun-grabbers will use every opportunity to misunderstand and misconstrue, and even deliberately ignore the obvious and twist the truth, so why give them more opportunities? Well, you have answered my question later in your post, to wit ...
I don't own a gun, have never fired a gun, and don't think it's a
very smart idea to own one.
... which is precisely the mentality of a typical gun-grabber. In most circles, saying that something isn't a very smart idea is tantamount to saying that it's a stupid idea. Why do you seem to make a value judgment about people who own a gun? Unlike you, I don't think anything one way or another about whether folks own a gun or not; that's their own business, and I don't concern myself with whether their justification makes sense to me. I happen to own several guns and enjoy firing them -- especially my muzzle loader and ball and cap revolver, and I used to hunt but haven't done that in a few years due to health and time. Why would you think that it's not a very smart idea for someone who hunts to own a gun? Or maybe you were just referring to yourself -- that it's not a smart idea for _YOU_ to own a gun. Well, you would be the best judge about that. Perhaps it's because of your temperament?? The problem is that gun-grabbers judge everyone else with a distorted view and then impose their own values and fears on others.
Furthermore, the Second Amendment
doesn't grant me the right to do so. It's obvious to anyone who
OBJECTIVEKLY reads that amendment that the right referred to is a
COLLECTIVE right, and refers to raising a militia. It's rather
amazing how the gun nuts can twist this to mean that everyone gets
to own his own personal arsenal.
You clearly don't know the first thing about the Second Amendment. All you are doing is parroting the words of other gun-grabbers. When have you studied the Second Amendment? What books have you read about it to have an informed basis for that opinion? What legal training do you have? And do you even know what the militia is? (Clue: it isn't just our organized armed forces.)
I'm not going to spend any more time here on this off-topic; this is a video poker forum, and I'm sure that it's falling on deaf ears anyway, so I won't waste any more of my time. I just felt compelled, as a patriot, to make one last response.
Bill Velek
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Bill Velek <billvelek@a...> wrote:
this is a video poker forum
Bill Velek
Thank you. It seems to have been wandering from that topic lately.
testpro wrote:
>this is a video poker forum
> Bill VelekThank you. It seems to have been wandering from that topic lately.
Well, I'm finished with it. Besides, I need to go pack my suitcase; my wife has invited me to be on the Jerry Springer show. I guess it's a game show of some sort. Maybe I'll have better luck than in the casinos and win a big prize. Boy, I can't wait to get there; I feel a real lucky streak coming on.
Cheers.
Bill Velek
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rockofjello333" <rockofjello333@y...>
wrote:
a whole lotta stuff which hints that Dr. Lewis (I mean Dr. Hyde) is
back from Sabbatical leave.