LTS

Just a quick note.. you should say that you were able to get a call and spoke directly to Paul Cambria who told you that. I didn't read it as you talking to him but that's good to note. Just easier to do it beforehand than afterward in clarification. :)

Let me say this.. "Why report to the police if you have no intention to testify?" That's a pretty cut a dry question. This assumes, that at the time the allocation is being made that the victim knows they will not testify. In some situations I could see that you would do this because you hope that merely reporting something allows for charges to be brought without your involvement. As we've covered, in a rape case, that's very difficult. However, the real problem is the assumption that the victim didn't want to testify at the time the report was made. Knowing that every human on Earth has made a decision without being aware of all the potential ramifications that come from that decision I think it's supportable to say that in a moment of emotional and physical distress that the victim would not be thinking about the pain that might be felt upon cross-examination when deciding to talk to the police. It's much more plausible that the victim would be thinking about the pain they are feeling at the moment. As time progresses and the immediate reality of what happened settles in there then comes the understanding of what comes next. The realization that some defense lawyer will absolutely paint the victim as someone who was in it to frame his client and that the "victim" (lawyer's words) made no clear indication that the sex was unwanted and every other little thing in the victim's life will be mentioned (even if overturned and the jury instructed to ignore the comment). That realization is why the decision to no longer want to testify could be made. It would be a better argument to find an improved method of handling a rape case such that the victim is not trotted out in front of strangers and forced to relive the events that happened. It might lead to a greater chance of the victim testifying. There is no reason that a rape victim needs to sit in an open courtroom for this. Let's break this down into a word equation of sorts. This incident occurs. It could be rape. The people involved will never undo the incident itself or what transpires after that. The victim, believing she was raped, will always believe she was raped. This stands regardless of a court result. She cannot undo that. If she proceeds to trial (any trial) she must relive the events again and be subjected to extensive examination of the way she lives her life and her decision making abilities. This will be painful. So you have pain of initial incident + pain of reliving in public which is logically greater than initial incident. Assuming the attacker is found guilty she can (in this situation) win a sizable civic lawsuit monetary settlement as well. = She has the money + pain of initial incident + pain of reliving the incident in public. Assuming the attacker is not found guilty, she MAY win a sizable monetary settlement as well. = She may have the money + pain of the initial incident + pain of reliving the incident in publi. She can settle pre-trial. She has the money + pain of initial incident. The last option. Never report it. She has the pain of the initial incident. The money is not presumed to help her heal. It might help her afford ways to seek healing that she would otherwise not have but that is all. If she never reports it she is left to cope with the pain without any additional financial and other resources that might be made available to her because of reporting it.

I called that one. (said no one ever).

Pysyk will be a surprise for those who still doubt. He will prove out to be one of the best D on the Sabres. He's going to be 3/4. He's not the guy who bangs bodies and he won't light it up offensively. He will, however, make the right first pass out of the zone and it will happen fast. He does take the puck of a stick fairly well to boot. His positioning and ability to make the right first pass are his biggest assets and they will serve him well. Oh.. and I like signing Franson.

Are you insinuating that people are to be controlled and forced to act? Where do you draw the line? Do people now have to intervene and try to stop a shooter? They are supposed to protect other members of society? If the victim is forced to testify and decides that the pain is unbearable and commits suicide rather than testify or even after the fact then who pays the price for that? Is the criminal justice system then sued by the relatives of the person? Do the taxpayers now have to pay for those damages? You aren't thinking clearly. Focus your anger on those who will continue to make him rich and employ him after this. After all, without that he's nothing. A few questions.. She accepts a deal. Then her name is going to be made public correct? Is she a victim, by the letter of the law? There was no crime, there can be no victim of a crime. When her information is put out there publicly not only will she have to deal with the potential backlash of public ignorance, but so will her family.

The things Carcillo continues to do off the ice make it hard for me to dislike the guy anymore. http://espn.go.com/nhl/story/_/id/13576886/nhl-chicago-blackhawks-daniel-carcillo-day-stanley-cup-tribute-steve-montador

I had a hard time even reading that list. It had a lot of pointless crap in it. Like dismissing Hawaii because it's Hawaii? I think they demonstrate a solid lack of understanding of each state's real beer scene.

You'll have some portability on 360 in the near future. If you've played online (or you play online) do you have a group of friends on the PS4 platform? it might not matter. I don't worry about games. Generally speaking each console will have its exclusives but ultimately they are just games.. Sales have the PS4 over Xbox. But really, it's up to you and what suits your needs best. I had a PS2 and that's end I stopped having Sony products in my house. just my thing. The Xbox has more versatility for me I guess and it's where my friends play.

You gotta love that he's staying with a guy who chose Buffalo over all other locations as an UFA. His answers are fantastic. Even including the no offense to the Coyotes wording. He's got it down. His thinking is excellent. Looking forward to the season.. it's about all I have at this point.

It's tough to be certain. I can say that beer judges usually do a pretty good job of differentiating. We have a few in our group and while we only do 6 IPA/DIPA in a session they are still able to go pretty strong whereas a few others tend to burn out by 6. There's still a million factors that can impact the rating a beer gets so it remains highly subjective. I'm a fan. I don't go crazy for it. Used to really go for In Heat Wheat but found a few other wheat beers that I prefer. Jack's Abby Copper Legend. (there I go again telling you about them).

I've mentioned I do blind tastings with a group of people who are all in the beer industry (brewers, distributors, etc.) This is not that group.. but I came across this the other day and figured I would post it given some recent discussion on DIPA / IPA. http://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2015/08/blind-tasting-115-of-the-best-american-dipa-and-im.html and here's the IPA blind tasting http://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2015/04/blind-tasting-116-of-the-best-american-ipas-we-hav.html?p=3 Pliny at 18, Heady at 16... I think the list in the wheelhouse of what I would have expected. I haven't had 3 of the top 4 (I'll seek out the Grimm soon).

Well if that's the case.. I don't pay any attention to what the windbag says so I wouldn't know.

Seriously.. what kind of response is that? I'm not even sure what you are getting at there with that comparison. I don't really appreciate being compared to Donald Trump..

I've never understood the hang up on a word. I say something is stupid. I say it's ignorant. I say it's patently absurd. I say it's valueless. I say it's silly. What difference does it make? Point is.. if i think it's stupid, that's my opinion. Using more flowery and softer language is like using makeup and airbrushing. The original concept hasn't changed.

That's his twin brother.. Gord.

Indeed. Acts of violence are clearly not common. If they were it's unlikely we'd be having this conversation right now. There are usually a lot of other reasons why trouble finds people as well. Sometimes it's just random, but usually it's not.

The thing you don't seem to be considering in your viewpoint is that when you meet someone face to face there is more than just words that provide information about the person you are talking with. Their body language will say quite a bit as well. Granted, I would say that if you head out to some random bar and just start looking for sex the risks are greater than normal but this is not anywhere near as when interacting with someone online. There's plenty of evidence that people pretend to be someone else when they are online. It's harder to pull off in person. Law enforcement has pretended to be an underage child plenty of times with the hopes of trapping potential sexual predators. It's unlikely the predator will be as easily caught if they are engaging in the encounter face to face.

In my opinion, your response egged on a further response from him. If you had intentions of changing the way he approached his response then I would have suggested that you provide guidance as to why he should respond differently. Furthermore, at that point I feel that the entire conversation between the two of you would have been better served in the PM channels of the forum and not played out in a thread about other topics. You have the power, you banned him. I don't agree with it.

I see why you think it is judgmental. However, I am not judging them for doing it. I am recognizing that if you are going to engage in a culture where you post a picture of yourself, receive a few messages from some unknown person, and from that decide to meet them to hook up that there will be problems that come from that. Not all the time, but it invites an entire genre of scenarios in which bad things could occur. Sex for fun is not the problem. It's the means by which it is arranged which I think becomes a problem. The concept is that you now have people throwing themselves out there looking to hook up. It might not always be via Tinder or some similar app but it begins to reduce the steps required to ascertain what the intentions of the both parties are when it comes to sex. When it comes to rape the defining moment is when a person consciously makes the decision to cross the clearly defined line. Much like owning a gun isn't inherently a problem. It's the decision to use it against someone else that is the problem. But, we talk about an atmosphere where people are commented on for wearing certain clothes or acting a certain way and then you get something like Tinder that enforces those concepts. You are posting alluring pictures of yourself online, it seems to indicate that you are interested in having people stare at you and make comments.

I disagree. So, in the 60's, as you are pointing out, people would have had to meet face to face before they could actually arrange a hookup (unless they were calling phone numbers randomly). The point here is that today with services like Tinder and such the ability exchange messages without having ever met someone first is extremely easy and that it doesn't take many messages to arrange a hookup. I'm not certain why you consider it a blind attack. If the information is accurate it's not an attack, it's the truth. I'm not judging millenials for doing this. If that is how they want to operate then they should feel free to do so. However, we are talking about a rape culture here and yet you can clearly see in the article the mindset of a group of people who are out there just looking to have sex purely for the purpose of getting off. But that aside.. there were plenty of people who complained about the free sex lifestyle. So, that's not even accurate.

On another note... http://mashable.com/2015/08/24/millennial-sex-online/ Submitted for your reading pleasure. 10 texts or less until hooking up. I can't imagine why there are problems in the world.

Yes.. the laws are broken down and clearly defined. Just because there are varying levels does not mean they are not clearly defined. Do you know who else gets registered as a sex offender? A person who is arrested for urinating in public. Talk about unfair. Yet.. those are the rules. Clearly defined. If you want to change the law you have to provide some method of changing it. We can have a discussion on that and eventually you might end up calling me a jerk or worse because I'll keep thinking up the what-if scenarios until you are completely exasperated. That's the problem with laws and why lawyers make a great living. However, the alternate is that you leave everything a gray area and call it common sense.. except we know that common sense is usually anything but common.

Had Three Heads Brewing Giant Panda Dub Style IPA last night. I think it's the best beer they've released to date. It's really pretty incredible. I'm just waiting for their brewery to open the doors because I know some of the changes they will make to the recipes will improve the other beers.

I don't think the lines are broken. What you are arguing for is the absence of a law. When a law is written, it can't be written so that it is arbitrarily defined. The law for statutory rape is clearly defined because if it wasn't there would be even more legal cases questioning the event every time it happens. It's like arguing that the 55mph speed limit shouldn't be there because everyone can handle the speed of a car differently. That may be, but there are laws because not everyone can handle it and so our government defines a law that mandates what is safe. You don't have to agree with it but it has to be defined. Regardless of male or female, the statutory rape definition should be adhered to uniformly. It doesn't matter if he was not traumatized. He may actually be as mature as an 18 year old, but the law has to be written with a specific date in mind. You can't have a double standard with the law. How does that work? Granted, there are plenty of things that happen that make it appear as though there is a double standard but the law still remains. The thing you have to realize and accept is.. there is a law and then there is reality. They don't have to be in sync. If you want to argue that the law should be written differently then you should change your communication to say that otherwise it basically sounds like you are arguing that the law should be applied differently based on the situation.

http://www.tsn.ca/wild-assistant-coach-sydor-arrested-for-dui-1.348913 He had a .30 BAC and was driving his 12 year old son to his hockey game? HOLY CR..A.. FU.. JES. CHR..WTF! If this pans out as reported... I mean.. wow.. I don't even know what to say.