the plot thickens

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...atestHeadlines

On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 06:37:29 -0600, the infamous Ignoramus21666
scrawled the following:

the plot thickens

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...atestHeadlines

Not just another "liberal with a gun" story, Ig?

--
It's a great life...once you weaken.
--author James Hogan

On 2010-02-16, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 06:37:29 -0600, the infamous Ignoramus21666
scrawled the following:

the plot thickens

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...atestHeadlines

Not just another "liberal with a gun" story, Ig?


Looks like she was a big time kook. Her political affiliation would
certainly be an interesting addition to what I know about her.

i

Ignoramus21666 wrote:
On 2010-02-16, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 06:37:29 -0600, the infamous Ignoramus21666
scrawled the following:

the plot thickens

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...atestHeadlines

Not just another "liberal with a gun" story, Ig?


Looks like she was a big time kook. Her political affiliation would
certainly be an interesting addition to what I know about her.

yeah, something isn't right about this person.

It's funny that in retrospect, everybody then states that "OMG so and so
was so weird/scary etc", yet until they actually do something over the
top, people keep their mouth shut.

So, has anybody here known/worked with any freaks that they called out as
nutty BEFORE they did something crazy?

On 2010-02-16, Cydrome Leader wrote:
Ignoramus21666 wrote:
On 2010-02-16, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 06:37:29 -0600, the infamous Ignoramus21666
scrawled the following:

the plot thickens

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...atestHeadlines

Not just another "liberal with a gun" story, Ig?


Looks like she was a big time kook. Her political affiliation would
certainly be an interesting addition to what I know about her.

yeah, something isn't right about this person.

It's funny that in retrospect, everybody then states that "OMG so and so
was so weird/scary etc", yet until they actually do something over the
top, people keep their mouth shut.

I believe that the faculty did not know of her criminal past (killing
her brother and pipe bombs), so they were not fully aware of who
they were dealing with.

So, has anybody here known/worked with any freaks that they called
out as nutty BEFORE they did something crazy?

I have not, but I would like to know, as well.

My own thinking on this matter is that there are many more workplace
kooks and workplace assholes, than there are workplace killers, so
guessing who will become a killer is difficult.

i

On Feb 16, 11:01*am, Cydrome Leader wrote:
Ignoramus21666 wrote:
On 2010-02-16, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 06:37:29 -0600, the infamous Ignoramus21666
scrawled the following:

the plot thickens

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...57506356135081....

Not just another "liberal with a gun" story, Ig? *

Looks like she was a big time kook. Her political affiliation would
certainly be an interesting addition to what I know about her.

yeah, something isn't right about this person.

It's funny that in retrospect, everybody then states that "OMG so and so
was so weird/scary etc", yet until they actually do something over the
top, people keep their mouth shut.

So, has anybody here known/worked with any freaks that they called out as
nutty BEFORE they did something crazy?

And the real question is with the current laws, how did this person
get a gun?

TMT

On Feb 16, 11:05*am, Ignoramus21666 ignoramus21...@NOSPAM.
21666.invalid wrote:
On 2010-02-16, Cydrome Leader wrote:





Ignoramus21666 wrote:
On 2010-02-16, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 06:37:29 -0600, the infamous Ignoramus21666
scrawled the following:

the plot thickens

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...57506356135081....

Not just another "liberal with a gun" story, Ig? *

Looks like she was a big time kook. Her political affiliation would
certainly be an interesting addition to what I know about her.

yeah, something isn't right about this person.

It's funny that in retrospect, everybody then states that "OMG so and so
was so weird/scary etc", yet until they actually do something over the
top, people keep their mouth shut.

I believe that the faculty did not know of her criminal past (killing
her brother and pipe bombs), so they were not fully aware of who
they were dealing with.

So, has anybody here known/worked with any freaks that they called
out as nutty BEFORE they did something crazy?

I have not, but I would like to know, as well.

My own thinking on this matter is that there are many more workplace
kooks and workplace assholes, than there are workplace killers, so
guessing who will become a killer is difficult.

i- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ig...in my experience there is little difference between the kooks/
assholes and the killers.

Many times that difference is only whether a gun is available at the
moment.

TMT

On Feb 16, 12:01*pm, Cydrome Leader wrote:
I...

So, has anybody here known/worked with any freaks that they called out as
nutty BEFORE they did something crazy?

Oh yes, five that I can think of quickly, but we were careful about
not calling them out.

Really nice guys, too, who'd do anything for someone who treated them
well. Maybe they had an overblown sense of right and wrong that was
easily set off. Che Guevara mentioned that a leader of revolutionaries
has to be especially careful with that common type of follower.

jsw

On Feb 16, 11:05*am, Ignoramus21666 ignoramus21...@NOSPAM.
21666.invalid wrote:
On 2010-02-16, Cydrome Leader wrote:





Ignoramus21666 wrote:
On 2010-02-16, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 06:37:29 -0600, the infamous Ignoramus21666
scrawled the following:

the plot thickens

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...57506356135081....

Not just another "liberal with a gun" story, Ig? *

Looks like she was a big time kook. Her political affiliation would
certainly be an interesting addition to what I know about her.

yeah, something isn't right about this person.

It's funny that in retrospect, everybody then states that "OMG so and so
was so weird/scary etc", yet until they actually do something over the
top, people keep their mouth shut.

I believe that the faculty did not know of her criminal past (killing
her brother and pipe bombs), so they were not fully aware of who
they were dealing with.

So, has anybody here known/worked with any freaks that they called
out as nutty BEFORE they did something crazy?

I have not, but I would like to know, as well.

My own thinking on this matter is that there are many more workplace
kooks and workplace assholes, than there are workplace killers, so
guessing who will become a killer is difficult.

i- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I would agree that the school did not know.

And apparently neither the people doing the background check on her if
that was her gun.

If that is the case, I am all for better background checks.

TMT

Too_Many_Tools wrote:

And the real question is with the current laws, how did this person
get a gun?

Maybe it had something to do with her not having been charged with or
convicted of a crime?

David

On Feb 16, 3:21*pm, "David R.Birch" wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote:
And the real question is with the current laws, how did this person
get a gun?

Maybe it had something to do with her not having been charged with or
convicted of a crime?

David

And why does that make a difference?

As I said, this is a prime example of background checks need to be
more extensive.

An example...

Years ago I used to have a neighbor who had severe anger management
problems...a real *******.

The guy liked to drink and loved guns.

I was the only neighbor that could deal with his behavior...and did
for many years...partly because I knew his parents/childhood had been
a major reason for his behavior.

One day he decided to go crazy mad ...on my driveway..and to this day
I have NO IDEA what set him off.

Finally I had to call the cops...in front of him.

At that point he decided it was best to retreat to his house.

At that point I told the 911 operator to hold off sending the cops.

A neighbor who witnessed this unfold still tells me to this day he
expected me to be shot dead by the end of that day.

Now I can tell you that person has NO BUSINESS owning a gun...but he
has many of them.

But there is no arrest or conviction on his record so he continues to
own and can buy guns.

If tomorrow I heard that one of his neighbors/family members had been
shot by this person, it would not surprise me at all.

The bottom line...there are many people who can pass a background
check and should not own a firearm.

The shooter from Alabama apparently is one of them.

And three people are dead because of our failure to properly control
responsible gun ownership.

If we cannot properly self police ourselves, society will do it for
us.

TMT

Larry Jaques wrote:

Not just another "liberal with a gun" story, Ig?


I damn near fell out of my chair when I read she was an Obama fetisher. I thought the
left stuck to bombs.

Wes

"David R.Birch" wrote:

Too_Many_Tools wrote:

And the real question is with the current laws, how did this person
get a gun?

Maybe it had something to do with her not having been charged with or
convicted of a crime?

David

Yes, people forget that "suspected" and "accused" aren't supposed to
count for anything once they have been investigated and no charges have
been made or proven.

On 2010-02-16, Wes wrote:
Larry Jaques wrote:

Not just another "liberal with a gun" story, Ig?

I damn near fell out of my chair when I read she was an Obama
fetisher. I thought the left stuck to bombs.

Yep, she indeed worshiped Obama. And she tried bombs, also, but her
bombs did not explode.

i

Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Feb 16, 3:21?pm, "David R.Birch" wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote:
And the real question is with the current laws, how did this person
get a gun?

Maybe it had something to do with her not having been charged with or
convicted of a crime?

David

And why does that make a difference?

As I said, this is a prime example of background checks need to be
more extensive.

An example...

Years ago I used to have a neighbor who had severe anger management
problems...a real *******.

The guy liked to drink and loved guns.

I was the only neighbor that could deal with his behavior...and did
for many years...partly because I knew his parents/childhood had been
a major reason for his behavior.

One day he decided to go crazy mad ...on my driveway..and to this day
I have NO IDEA what set him off.

Finally I had to call the cops...in front of him.

At that point he decided it was best to retreat to his house.

At that point I told the 911 operator to hold off sending the cops.

A neighbor who witnessed this unfold still tells me to this day he
expected me to be shot dead by the end of that day.

Now I can tell you that person has NO BUSINESS owning a gun...but he
has many of them.

But there is no arrest or conviction on his record so he continues to
own and can buy guns.

while possibly true, you were able to read this person as being broken.

I don't do crimminal check on people I meet, but it's usually obvious in
seconds to minutes if a person is just bad. I have no problem telling if
somebody is shifty or not. Other people just don't get it.

If tomorrow I heard that one of his neighbors/family members had been
shot by this person, it would not surprise me at all.

The bottom line...there are many people who can pass a background
check and should not own a firearm.

The shooter from Alabama apparently is one of them.

I wonder if they were clearly and obviously broken to start with, and if
so, why were they hired in the first place.

A bunch of places interview new candidates by letting them meet potential
coworkers, so weed out any future clashes.

A person may be qualified on paper, but a complete jackass that nobody
wants to work with, and some employers realize these people are hard to
get rid of and it's easier to just not hire them in the first place.

Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Feb 16, 3:21 pm, "David R.Birch" wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote:
And the real question is with the current laws, how did this person
get a gun?
Maybe it had something to do with her not having been charged with or
convicted of a crime?

David

And why does that make a difference?

Because we have something called the rule of law in this country.

As I said, this is a prime example of background checks need to be
more extensive.

An example...

Years ago I used to have a neighbor who had severe anger management
problems...a real *******.

The guy liked to drink and loved guns.

I was the only neighbor that could deal with his behavior...and did
for many years...partly because I knew his parents/childhood had been
a major reason for his behavior.

How did you deal with his behavior?

One day he decided to go crazy mad ...on my driveway..and to this day
I have NO IDEA what set him off.

Finally I had to call the cops...in front of him.

You called the cops because your neighbor was angry and you didn't
know why...?

At that point he decided it was best to retreat to his house.

At that point I told the 911 operator to hold off sending the cops.

And she did what you said? Hard to believe, they aren't usually that
gullible, they would probably at least send out a squad car when one
was free.

A neighbor who witnessed this unfold still tells me to this day he
expected me to be shot dead by the end of that day.

Now I can tell you that person has NO BUSINESS owning a gun...but he
has many of them.

And hasn't committed any crimes with them? So he has that much self
control.

But there is no arrest or conviction on his record so he continues to
own and can buy guns.

That's called freedom. I sense you are uncomfortable with the concept.

If tomorrow I heard that one of his neighbors/family members had been
shot by this person, it would not surprise me at all.

The bottom line...there are many people who can pass a background
check and should not own a firearm.

You seem to believe that no one should own a firearm on the off chance
they might misuse one. I think you're projecting your own doubts and
fears of your own weaknesses onto others.

The shooter from Alabama apparently is one of them.

And three people are dead because of our failure to properly control
responsible gun ownership.

Tell me how gun control would have stopped a person with no criminal
background from arming themselves.

If we cannot properly self police ourselves, society will do it for
us.

No, thank you, society has a bad record in this. Societies that do
this well are called police states.

David

I heard there were inflammatory email to her just before
and then the 'You have an IQ of 160 and know your stuff...'
but your not good enough... Something is rotten here and
this person was stressed to the breaking point. I think some
other members of the staff - maybe those shot first - pushed
her over the edge.

If that is true, they broke laws and sadly were out of their league,
the person didn't just leave or kill her self, but shot the bad ones.

This will be a long drawn out physiological study and trial.

Sicking what people do - both sides.

Martin

Ignoramus21666 wrote:
the plot thickens

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...atestHeadlines

On Feb 17, 4:24*am, "David R.Birch" wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote:

Years ago I used to have a neighbor who had severe anger management
problems...a real *******.

The guy liked to drink and loved guns.

I was the only neighbor that could deal with his behavior...and did
for many years...partly because I knew his parents/childhood had been
a major reason for his behavior.

David

TMT has posted many times about the need for requiring testing of
people before allowing them to purchase guns. But strangely this is
the first mention of a neighbor with mental problems. The whole thing
sounds too pat for me to believe it.

Dan

On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 09:50:40 -0600, the infamous Ignoramus21666
scrawled the following:

On 2010-02-16, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 06:37:29 -0600, the infamous Ignoramus21666
scrawled the following:

the plot thickens

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...atestHeadlines

Not just another "liberal with a gun" story, Ig?


Looks like she was a big time kook. Her political affiliation would
certainly be an interesting addition to what I know about her.

I'll give you odds that, as a professor and academic, she's a
registered Demon^Hcrat.

--
Note to The O -

You can't build a reputation on what you are going to do.
-- Henry Ford

On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 17:28:26 -0500, the infamous Wes
scrawled the following:

Larry Jaques wrote:

Not just another "liberal with a gun" story, Ig?


I damn near fell out of my chair when I read she was an Obama fetisher. I thought the
left stuck to bombs.

(They shoot abortion doctors, don't they? Oops, no, that's the
ultra-conservative kooks. I guess both sides grow 'em.)

Yeah, I thought so, too.

--
Note to The O -

You can't build a reputation on what you are going to do.
-- Henry Ford

On 2010-02-17, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 09:50:40 -0600, the infamous Ignoramus21666
scrawled the following:

On 2010-02-16, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 06:37:29 -0600, the infamous Ignoramus21666
scrawled the following:

the plot thickens

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...atestHeadlines

Not just another "liberal with a gun" story, Ig?


Looks like she was a big time kook. Her political affiliation would
certainly be an interesting addition to what I know about her.

I'll give you odds that, as a professor and academic, she's a
registered Demon^Hcrat.

Indeed ,this is the case, she was an ardent Obama supporter.

i

On Feb 16, 4:28*pm, Wes wrote:
Larry Jaques wrote:
Not just another "liberal with a gun" story, Ig? *

I damn near fell out of my chair when I read she was an Obama fetisher. *I thought the
left stuck to bombs.

Wes

The two cases of beer might have had something to do with that also.

TMT

On Feb 16, 5:37*pm, Cydrome Leader wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Feb 16, 3:21?pm, "David R.Birch" wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote:
And the real question is with the current laws, how did this person
get a gun?

Maybe it had something to do with her not having been charged with or
convicted of a crime?

David

And why does that make a difference?

As I said, this is a prime example of background checks need to be
more extensive.

An example...

Years ago I used to have a neighbor who had severe anger management
problems...a real *******.

The guy liked to drink and loved guns.

I was the only neighbor that could deal with his behavior...and did
for many years...partly because I knew his parents/childhood had been
a major reason for his behavior.

One day he decided to go crazy mad ...on my driveway..and to this day
I have NO IDEA what set him off.

Finally I had to call the cops...in front of him.

At that point he decided it was best to retreat to his house.

At that point I told the 911 operator to hold off sending the cops.

A neighbor who witnessed this unfold still tells me to this day he
expected me to be shot dead by the end of that day.

Now I can tell you that person has NO BUSINESS owning a gun...but he
has many of them.

But there is no arrest or conviction on his record so he continues to
own and can buy guns.

while possibly true, you were able to read this person as being broken.

I don't do crimminal check on people I meet, but it's usually obvious in
seconds to minutes if a person is just bad. I have no problem telling if
somebody is shifty or not. Other people just don't get it.

If tomorrow I heard that one of his neighbors/family members had been
shot by this person, it would not surprise me at all.

The bottom line...there are many people who can pass a background
check and should not own a firearm.

The shooter from Alabama apparently is one of them.

I wonder if they were clearly and obviously broken to start with, and if
so, why were they hired in the first place.

A bunch of places interview new candidates by letting them meet potential
coworkers, so weed out any future clashes.

A person may be qualified on paper, but a complete jackass that nobody
wants to work with, and some employers realize these people are hard to
get rid of and it's easier to just not hire them in the first place.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Your evaluation of your capabilities is overestimated.

Many people who are "normal" are not.

Why do you think they require drug testing instead of "eyeballing".

TMT

On Feb 16, 10:24*pm, "David R.Birch" wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Feb 16, 3:21 pm, "David R.Birch" wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote:
And the real question is with the current laws, how did this person
get a gun?
Maybe it had something to do with her not having been charged with or
convicted of a crime?

David

And why does that make a difference?

Because we have something called the rule of law in this country.



As I said, this is a prime example of background checks need to be
more extensive.

An example...

Years ago I used to have a neighbor who had severe anger management
problems...a real *******.

The guy liked to drink and loved guns.

I was the only neighbor that could deal with his behavior...and did
for many years...partly because I knew his parents/childhood had been
a major reason for his behavior.

How did you deal with his behavior?



One day he decided to go crazy mad ...on my driveway..and to this day
I have NO IDEA what set him off.

Finally I had to call the cops...in front of him.

You called the cops because your neighbor was angry and you didn't
know why...?



At that point he decided it was best to retreat to his house.

At that point I told the 911 operator to hold off sending the cops.

And she did what you said? Hard to believe, they aren't usually that
gullible, they would probably at least send out a squad car when one
was free.



A neighbor who witnessed this unfold still tells me to this day he
expected me to be shot dead by the end of that day.

Now I can tell you that person has NO BUSINESS owning a gun...but he
has many of them.

And hasn't committed any crimes with them? So he has that much self
control.



But there is no arrest or conviction on his record so he continues to
own and can buy guns.

That's called freedom. I sense you are uncomfortable with the concept.



If tomorrow I heard that one of his neighbors/family members had been
shot by this person, it would not surprise me at all.

The bottom line...there are many people who can pass a background
check and should not own a firearm.

You seem to believe that no one should own a firearm on the off chance
they might misuse one. I think you're projecting your own doubts and
fears of your own weaknesses onto others.



The shooter from Alabama apparently is one of them.

And three people are dead because of our failure to properly control
responsible gun ownership.

Tell me how gun control would have stopped a person with no criminal
background from arming themselves.



If we cannot properly self police ourselves, society will do it for
us.

No, thank you, society has a bad record in this. Societies that do
this well are called police states.

David

Well David if you want to ask your questions one at a time I will
answer them...in the format you chose it is not worth my effort.

TMT

On Feb 16, 10:54*pm, "Martin H. Eastburn"
wrote:
I heard there were inflammatory email to her just before
and then the 'You have an IQ of 160 and know your stuff...'
but your not good enough... *Something is rotten here and
this person was stressed to the breaking point. *I think some
other members of the staff - maybe those shot first - pushed
her over the edge.

If that is true, they broke laws and sadly were out of their league,
the person didn't just leave or kill her self, but shot the bad ones.

This will be a long drawn out physiological study and trial.

Sicking what people do - both sides.

Martin



Ignoramus21666 wrote:
the plot thickens

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...6356135081...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I think you are right.

The more they dig, the more they are finding.

Something pushed this person over the edge...and it hasn't been
mentioned yet.

TMT

On Feb 17, 10:59*am, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 09:50:40 -0600, the infamous Ignoramus21666
scrawled the following:

On 2010-02-16, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 06:37:29 -0600, the infamous Ignoramus21666
scrawled the following:

the plot thickens

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...57506356135081....

Not just another "liberal with a gun" story, Ig? *

Looks like she was a big time kook. Her political affiliation would
certainly be an interesting addition to what I know about her.

I'll give you odds that, as a professor and academic, she's a
registered Demon^Hcrat.

--
Note to The O -

You can't build a reputation on what you are going to do.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *-- Henry Ford

It is a fact that the better educated you are, the more likely you
will be a registered Democrat.

Does that make you feel threatened?

TMT

Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Feb 16, 5:37 pm, Cydrome Leader wrote:

A person may be qualified on paper, but a complete jackass that nobody
wants to work with, and some employers realize these people are hard to
get rid of and it's easier to just not hire them in the first place.- Hide quoted text -

Yeah, and to further complicate the matter, some complete
jackasses can be worth their ass in gold to a company
if they can get a job done that nobody else can...

On Feb 17, 11:59*am, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 09:50:40 -0600, the infamous Ignoramus21666
scrawled the following:

On 2010-02-16, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 06:37:29 -0600, the infamous Ignoramus21666
scrawled the following:

the plot thickens

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...57506356135081....

Not just another "liberal with a gun" story, Ig? *

Looks like she was a big time kook. Her political affiliation would
certainly be an interesting addition to what I know about her.

I'll give you odds that, as a professor and academic, she's a
registered Demon^Hcrat.

--
Note to The O -

You can't build a reputation on what you are going to do.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *-- Henry Ford

So, what you're saying is that Assholes^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HRepublicans are
uneducated?

Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Feb 16, 5:37?pm, Cydrome Leader wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Feb 16, 3:21?pm, "David R.Birch" wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote:
And the real question is with the current laws, how did this person
get a gun?

Maybe it had something to do with her not having been charged with or
convicted of a crime?

David

And why does that make a difference?

As I said, this is a prime example of background checks need to be
more extensive.

An example...

Years ago I used to have a neighbor who had severe anger management
problems...a real *******.

The guy liked to drink and loved guns.

I was the only neighbor that could deal with his behavior...and did
for many years...partly because I knew his parents/childhood had been
a major reason for his behavior.

One day he decided to go crazy mad ...on my driveway..and to this day
I have NO IDEA what set him off.

Finally I had to call the cops...in front of him.

At that point he decided it was best to retreat to his house.

At that point I told the 911 operator to hold off sending the cops.

A neighbor who witnessed this unfold still tells me to this day he
expected me to be shot dead by the end of that day.

Now I can tell you that person has NO BUSINESS owning a gun...but he
has many of them.

But there is no arrest or conviction on his record so he continues to
own and can buy guns.

while possibly true, you were able to read this person as being broken.

I don't do crimminal check on people I meet, but it's usually obvious in
seconds to minutes if a person is just bad. I have no problem telling if
somebody is shifty or not. Other people just don't get it.

If tomorrow I heard that one of his neighbors/family members had been
shot by this person, it would not surprise me at all.

The bottom line...there are many people who can pass a background
check and should not own a firearm.

The shooter from Alabama apparently is one of them.

I wonder if they were clearly and obviously broken to start with, and if
so, why were they hired in the first place.

A bunch of places interview new candidates by letting them meet potential
coworkers, so weed out any future clashes.

A person may be qualified on paper, but a complete jackass that nobody
wants to work with, and some employers realize these people are hard to
get rid of and it's easier to just not hire them in the first place.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Your evaluation of your capabilities is overestimated.

not at all. People comment to me all the time on how I was right about
calling somebody no good or sketchy after meeting them once.

Many people who are "normal" are not.

Only if you're really bad at judging character, and just assume everybody
is normal.

Why do you think they require drug testing instead of "eyeballing".

to be corporate, lazy and to shift work to somebody else?

Anyways, if people aren't on PCP and running an overhead crane, or driving
a school bus, I don't care what they do.

I'd be more worried about people on 50 prescription medications over some
somebody that smokes up on the weekend. There's also plenty of coke users
that live completely functional lives and don't smash and grab car
stereos or stupid stuff like that.

As for me, I'd pass any drug test, but will not take one. If they decide
to do testing at work, I'll get a new job where playing with my **** isn't
involved. Unless people see me snorting coke off my desk, or running the
forking through walls, it's nobody's business what I do.

What's next? alcohol tests, smoking tests?

Jim Stewart wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Feb 16, 5:37 pm, Cydrome Leader wrote:

A person may be qualified on paper, but a complete jackass that nobody
wants to work with, and some employers realize these people are hard to
get rid of and it's easier to just not hire them in the first place.- Hide quoted text -

Yeah, and to further complicate the matter, some complete
jackasses can be worth their ass in gold to a company
if they can get a job done that nobody else can...

there's far less one-person-hero worker than other employees.

Steve Ackman wrote:
In , on Wed, 17 Feb 2010 19:44:21 +0000
(UTC), Cydrome Leader, wrote:

What's next? alcohol tests, smoking tests?

Some hospitals are doing urine tests for nicotine.
You're offered smoking cessation if found positive,
fired if you refuse to "take advantage" of it.

people need to take a stand and say no to all these stupid tests, unless
you get to do cool things like jab the HR people to take their blood
samples when they're not looking, then publish the results in the break
room.

On Feb 17, 11:23*am, Ignoramus15568 ignoramus15...@NOSPAM.
15568.invalid wrote:
On 2010-02-17, Larry Jaques wrote:





On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 09:50:40 -0600, the infamous Ignoramus21666
scrawled the following:

On 2010-02-16, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 06:37:29 -0600, the infamous Ignoramus21666
scrawled the following:

the plot thickens

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...57506356135081....

Not just another "liberal with a gun" story, Ig? *

Looks like she was a big time kook. Her political affiliation would
certainly be an interesting addition to what I know about her.

I'll give you odds that, as a professor and academic, she's a
registered Demon^Hcrat.

Indeed ,this is the case, she was an ardent Obama supporter.

i- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So they say.

And so are millions of other Americans Ig.

Which begs the question.. what would "an ardent Obama supporter" be
doing in Alabama?

And why did "she being an Obama supporter" (if true) come out while
the bodies were still warm?

In my experience, that little tidbit and its timing seems designed to
be an attempt to smear her reputation.

Maybe we have a case of one liberal working with a den of foaming
mouth conservatives.

It would not surprise me a bit if it is found that she was working in
a hostile work environment and snapped.

The term "going postal" has such a history.

Bullies are always surprised when the one they pick on fights back.

I should add...my comments in no way make her actions acceptable.

The simple truth is that she should not have had a gun and the current
checks and balances in gun purchasing failed.

Time to fix the background check problem.

We have three more dead reasons why.

TMT

On Feb 17, 7:23*am, " wrote:
On Feb 17, 4:24*am, "David R.Birch" wrote:

Too_Many_Tools wrote:
Years ago I used to have a neighbor who had severe anger management
problems...a real *******.

The guy liked to drink and loved guns.

I was the only neighbor that could deal with his behavior...and did
for many years...partly because I knew his parents/childhood had been
a major reason for his behavior.

David

TMT has posted many times about the need for requiring testing of
people before allowing them to purchase guns. *But strangely this is
the first mention of a neighbor with mental problems. *The whole thing
sounds too pat for me to believe it.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Dan

What's the problem Dan..worried you were that neighbor?

TMT

On Feb 17, 1:44*pm, Cydrome Leader wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Feb 16, 5:37?pm, Cydrome Leader wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Feb 16, 3:21?pm, "David R.Birch" wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote:
And the real question is with the current laws, how did this person
get a gun?

Maybe it had something to do with her not having been charged with or
convicted of a crime?

David

And why does that make a difference?

As I said, this is a prime example of background checks need to be
more extensive.

An example...

Years ago I used to have a neighbor who had severe anger management
problems...a real *******.

The guy liked to drink and loved guns.

I was the only neighbor that could deal with his behavior...and did
for many years...partly because I knew his parents/childhood had been
a major reason for his behavior.

One day he decided to go crazy mad ...on my driveway..and to this day
I have NO IDEA what set him off.

Finally I had to call the cops...in front of him.

At that point he decided it was best to retreat to his house.

At that point I told the 911 operator to hold off sending the cops.

A neighbor who witnessed this unfold still tells me to this day he
expected me to be shot dead by the end of that day.

Now I can tell you that person has NO BUSINESS owning a gun...but he
has many of them.

But there is no arrest or conviction on his record so he continues to
own and can buy guns.

while possibly true, you were able to read this person as being broken..

I don't do crimminal check on people I meet, but it's usually obvious in
seconds to minutes if a person is just bad. I have no problem telling if
somebody is shifty or not. Other people just don't get it.

If tomorrow I heard that one of his neighbors/family members had been
shot by this person, it would not surprise me at all.

The bottom line...there are many people who can pass a background
check and should not own a firearm.

The shooter from Alabama apparently is one of them.

I wonder if they were clearly and obviously broken to start with, and if
so, why were they hired in the first place.

A bunch of places interview new candidates by letting them meet potential
coworkers, so weed out any future clashes.

A person may be qualified on paper, but a complete jackass that nobody
wants to work with, and some employers realize these people are hard to
get rid of and it's easier to just not hire them in the first place.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Your evaluation of your capabilities is overestimated.

not at all. People comment to me all the time on how I was right about
calling somebody no good or sketchy after meeting them once.

Many people who are "normal" *are not.

Only if you're really bad at judging character, and just assume everybody
is normal.

Why do you think they require drug testing instead of "eyeballing".

to be corporate, lazy and to shift work to somebody else?

Anyways, if people aren't on PCP and running an overhead crane, or driving
a school bus, I don't care what they do.

I'd be more worried about people on 50 prescription medications over some
somebody that smokes up on the weekend. There's also plenty of coke users
that live completely functional lives and don't smash and grab car
stereos or stupid stuff like that.

As for me, I'd pass any drug test, but will not take one. If they decide
to do testing at work, I'll get a new job where playing with my **** isn't
involved. Unless people see me snorting coke off my desk, or running the
forking through walls, it's nobody's business what I do.

What's next? alcohol tests, smoking tests?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yes and yes.

It is becoming very common for drug, smoking and alcohol testing
before hiring.

Companies also check your credit rating and driving record.

Don't like it...tough ****.

Businesses don't care if you like it or not.

So be pro-business....

TMT

On Feb 17, 6:53Â*pm, Steve Ackman
wrote:
In , on Wed, 17 Feb 2010 19:44:21 +0000
(UTC), Cydrome Leader, wrote:

What's next? alcohol tests, smoking tests?

Â* Some hospitals are doing urine tests for nicotine.
You're offered smoking cessation if found positive,
fired if you refuse to "take advantage" of it.

--
˜¯˜¯
Unlimited webspace - Unlimited bandwidthhttp://www.dreamhost.com/r.cgi?74713

More than just hosipitals.

It is becoming the norm...nicotine and alcohol.

TMT

On Feb 17, 7:36*pm, Cydrome Leader wrote:
Steve Ackman wrote:
In , on Wed, 17 Feb 2010 19:44:21 +0000
(UTC), Cydrome Leader, wrote:

What's next? alcohol tests, smoking tests?

*Some hospitals are doing urine tests for nicotine.
You're offered smoking cessation if found positive,
fired if you refuse to "take advantage" of it.

people need to take a stand and say no to all these stupid tests, unless
you get to do cool things like jab the HR people to take their blood
samples when they're not looking, then publish the results in the break
room.

Why?

Employers can demand what they want to...and the pro-business
Republicans will let them.

Or do you want the Democrats to stand up for your rights?

TMT

Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Feb 16, 10:24 pm, "David R.Birch" wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Feb 16, 3:21 pm, "David R.Birch" wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote:
And the real question is with the current laws, how did this person
get a gun?
Maybe it had something to do with her not having been charged with or
convicted of a crime?
David
And why does that make a difference?
Because we have something called the rule of law in this country.



As I said, this is a prime example of background checks need to be
more extensive.
An example...
Years ago I used to have a neighbor who had severe anger management
problems...a real *******.
The guy liked to drink and loved guns.
I was the only neighbor that could deal with his behavior...and did
for many years...partly because I knew his parents/childhood had been
a major reason for his behavior.
How did you deal with his behavior?



One day he decided to go crazy mad ...on my driveway..and to this day
I have NO IDEA what set him off.
Finally I had to call the cops...in front of him.
You called the cops because your neighbor was angry and you didn't
know why...?



At that point he decided it was best to retreat to his house.
At that point I told the 911 operator to hold off sending the cops.
And she did what you said? Hard to believe, they aren't usually that
gullible, they would probably at least send out a squad car when one
was free.



A neighbor who witnessed this unfold still tells me to this day he
expected me to be shot dead by the end of that day.
Now I can tell you that person has NO BUSINESS owning a gun...but he
has many of them.
And hasn't committed any crimes with them? So he has that much self
control.



But there is no arrest or conviction on his record so he continues to
own and can buy guns.
That's called freedom. I sense you are uncomfortable with the concept.



If tomorrow I heard that one of his neighbors/family members had been
shot by this person, it would not surprise me at all.
The bottom line...there are many people who can pass a background
check and should not own a firearm.
You seem to believe that no one should own a firearm on the off chance
they might misuse one. I think you're projecting your own doubts and
fears of your own weaknesses onto others.



The shooter from Alabama apparently is one of them.
And three people are dead because of our failure to properly control
responsible gun ownership.
Tell me how gun control would have stopped a person with no criminal
background from arming themselves.



If we cannot properly self police ourselves, society will do it for
us.
No, thank you, society has a bad record in this. Societies that do
this well are called police states.

David

Well David if you want to ask your questions one at a time I will
answer them...in the format you chose it is not worth my effort.

TMT

So the format is the issue? Not the fact that you can't answer them
regardless of format?

Read a question. Type a response. Repeat.

David

"Martin H. Eastburn" wrote:

I heard there were inflammatory email to her just before
and then the 'You have an IQ of 160 and know your stuff...'
but your not good enough... Something is rotten here and
this person was stressed to the breaking point. I think some
other members of the staff - maybe those shot first - pushed
her over the edge.

If that is true, they broke laws and sadly were out of their league,
the person didn't just leave or kill her self, but shot the bad ones.

This will be a long drawn out physiological study and trial.

Sicking what people do - both sides.


IIRC, she was learned in neurosciences. I wonder if it was a case of physician, heal
thyself?

Damn, just heard on the news that another nut ruined a perfectly good Piper Cherokee
today. I'm partial to those, first aircraft I ever sat left seat in.

Wes

" wrote:

On Feb 17, 4:24 am, "David R.Birch" wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote:

Years ago I used to have a neighbor who had severe anger management
problems...a real *******.

The guy liked to drink and loved guns.

I was the only neighbor that could deal with his behavior...and did
for many years...partly because I knew his parents/childhood had been
a major reason for his behavior.

David

TMT has posted many times about the need for requiring testing of
people before allowing them to purchase guns. But strangely this is
the first mention of a neighbor with mental problems. The whole thing
sounds too pat for me to believe it.


It makes sense, if he's posting from the asylum.


--
Greed is the root of all eBay.

On Feb 18, 5:37*am, "David R.Birch" wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Feb 16, 10:24 pm, "David R.Birch" wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Feb 16, 3:21 pm, "David R.Birch" wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote:
And the real question is with the current laws, how did this person
get a gun?
Maybe it had something to do with her not having been charged with or
convicted of a crime?
David
And why does that make a difference?
Because we have something called the rule of law in this country.

As I said, this is a prime example of background checks need to be
more extensive.
An example...
Years ago I used to have a neighbor who had severe anger management
problems...a real *******.
The guy liked to drink and loved guns.
I was the only neighbor that could deal with his behavior...and did
for many years...partly because I knew his parents/childhood had been
a major reason for his behavior.
How did you deal with his behavior?

One day he decided to go crazy mad ...on my driveway..and to this day
I have NO IDEA what set him off.
Finally I had to call the cops...in front of him.
You called the cops because your neighbor was angry and you didn't
know why...?

At that point he decided it was best to retreat to his house.
At that point I told the 911 operator to hold off sending the cops.
And she did what you said? Hard to believe, they aren't usually that
gullible, they would probably at least send out a squad car when one
was free.

A neighbor who witnessed this unfold still tells me to this day he
expected me to be shot dead by the end of that day.
Now I can tell you that person has NO BUSINESS owning a gun...but he
has many of them.
And hasn't committed any crimes with them? So he has that much self
control.

But there is no arrest or conviction on his record so he continues to
own and can buy guns.
That's called freedom. I sense you are uncomfortable with the concept.

If tomorrow I heard that one of his neighbors/family members had been
shot by this person, it would not surprise me at all.
The bottom line...there are many people who can pass a background
check and should not own a firearm.
You seem to believe that no one should own a firearm on the off chance
they might misuse one. I think you're projecting your own doubts and
fears of your own weaknesses onto others.

The shooter from Alabama apparently is one of them.
And three people are dead because of our failure to properly control
responsible gun ownership.
Tell me how gun control would have stopped a person with no criminal
background from arming themselves.

If we cannot properly self police ourselves, society will do it for
us.
No, thank you, society has a bad record in this. Societies that do
this well are called police states.

David

Well David if you want to ask your questions one at a time I will
answer them...in the format you chose it is not worth my effort.

TMT

So the format is the issue? Not the fact that you can't answer them
regardless of format?

Read a question. Type a response. Repeat.

David- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yes. Reread my request. Compile.

TMT