#328565 - 09/05/04 10:49 AM
Hate crime legislation. Right or wrong?
|
member
Registered: 02/04/04
|
What are your opinions on hate crime legislation? It was put on paper to discourage hate crimes, but personally I think it's a shotty piece of legislation, and I don't see how it is justified to give greater penalty for a hate crime then any other crime.
If I beat up a man out of hate because he's black, or gay or jewish etc... why is that any diffrent then beating up a man because I hate him because he's a republican, or likes a sports team I don't like etc etc...
To me, assault is assault. The penalty should depend on the severity of the assault, the degree of pre-meditation etc...
I do agree the hate crime legislation is good when it comes to areas of discrimination, such as work place discrimination.
Another thing that bothers me is the fact that it's a hate crime to write hateful literature about people covered by the hate crime legislation. To me it's outright censorship. Canada recently broadend it's hate crime definition to envelope homosexuals (before it was very vague about how the legislation applied to hate crimes agaisnt homosexuals) and I expect various right wing religious publications to end up in court for writeing about how homosexuality is wrong. Something is wrong when the government can step in and censor religious publications.
Personally I think homosexuals should have inclusion in the legislation just because everyone else does, but it kind of bothers me to see the legislation becomeing larger.
Another issue is hate crimes agaisnt majoritys are rarely charged. For example if I am beaten up by a black man because he hates white men, he will simply be charged with assault most likely (although people have been charged with hate crimes in these instances). Furthermore if I beat up a black man because he beat up my brother for example. Even though my motivation isn't hatred towards black men, there is a very good chance I could be charged with a hate crime and receive more jail time.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#328566 - 09/05/04 01:05 PM
Re: Hate crime legislation. Right or wrong?
[Re: robotface]
|
remembers when it was all fields round here
Registered: 27/02/03
Loc: in the works... somewhere...
|
Quote:
Another thing that bothers me is the fact that it's a hate crime to write hateful literature about people covered by the hate crime legislation.
I'm not sure I want to know...but why should this bother you?
Quote:
Something is wrong when the government can step in and censor religious publications.
Not really. Something is definitely wrong when religious publications include content about how homosexuality is wrong in the first place, because homosexuality isn't wrong.
Quote:
For example if I am beaten up by a black man because he hates white men, he will simply be charged with assault most likely (although people have been charged with hate crimes in these instances).
Well, if you can prove that you were assaulted by anyone because you are white, beyond reasonable doubt, it shouldn't be a problem. As you say, it's not unheard of.
Quote:
Furthermore if I beat up a black man because he beat up my brother for example. Even though my motivation isn't hatred towards black men, there is a very good chance I could be charged with a hate crime and receive more jail time.
Quite simply, you would have to prove that you didn't beat the black man because he is black. And if you beat him up because he beats up your brother, the law will obviously not be sympathetic towards you as you should resolve the situation by informing the police, instead of taking it into your own hands.
But despite these things, yes, assault is assault. If the assault is motivated by hate, there should be additional penalties.
_________________________
"I thought you are man, but
you are nice woman.
yay,
:R"
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#328567 - 09/05/04 01:15 PM
Re: Hate crime legislation. Right or wrong?
[Re: Spanner]
|
HOP Mad Doctor
Registered: 28/05/01
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
|
I personally don't think that motive should figure into it. Banning hate isn't going to make hate go away any more than banning drugs is going to make drugs go away. So I don't see a point to those laws.
_________________________
-Mike )'(
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#328568 - 09/05/04 01:39 PM
Re: Hate crime legislation. Right or wrong?
[Re: Spanner]
|
member
Registered: 02/04/04
|
I'm not sure I want to know...but why should this bother you?Quote:
Censorship. Freedome of speech.
Quote:
Not really. Something is definitely wrong when religious publications include content about how homosexuality is wrong in the first place, because homosexuality isn't wrong.
Censorship. Freedome of religion. The bible does say homosexuality is wrong, why should they not be able to write about this? Maybe we should revise it to comply with the law as it's obviously a piece of hate literature.
Quote:
Well, if you can prove that you were assaulted by anyone because you are white, beyond reasonable doubt, it shouldn't be a problem. As you say, it's not unheard of.
The jury is already biased agaisnt me, A prosecutor can just spew emotive liberal nonsense to win the trial. A quote of me saying something racist provided by a witness, even if I said it 5 years ago could convict me.
Quote:
Quite simply, you would have to prove that you didn't beat the black man because he is black. And if you beat him up because he beats up your brother, the law will obviously not be sympathetic towards you as you should resolve the situation by informing the police, instead of taking it into your own hands.
So, that's one charge, pre-mediated assault with unjust grounds, with a harsh penalty to discourage vigilantism. Not two.
Oh yeah and if the crime is movitated by hate, why can't they give the offender a maximum sentence? Instead of a maximum sentence with another charge ontop of it. This is why we have variable sentencing.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#328569 - 09/05/04 01:51 PM
Re: Hate crime legislation. Right or wrong?
[Re: robotface]
|
member
Registered: 02/04/04
|
also what crime besides those motivated by personal gain or sadistic enjoyment aren't motivated by hate?
Also why is a crime motivated by hate worse then one motivated by personal gain worse?
I find it pretty damn disturbing when someone commits a violent crime for money or personal enjoyment.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#328570 - 09/05/04 02:01 PM
Re: Hate crime legislation. Right or wrong?
[Re: robotface]
|
member
Registered: 02/04/04
|
Also what kind of arguement is "theres something wrong when peole write about homosexuality because homosexuality isn't wrong"
Try this.
Theres something wrong when everyone on this board talks about how the war is wrong, because it isn't wrong. If you talk about how it's wrong I will delete all your posts. No one will delete my posts about talking about why the war is justified, because I am right and I am not being hateful but expressing the truth, from the position of a minority.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#328571 - 09/05/04 06:36 PM
Re: Hate crime legislation. Right or wrong?
[Re: robotface]
|
enthusiast
Registered: 13/04/04
|
I wonder if it is easy to proove something was a hatecrime. While I know there are the obvious clues, what about in unobvious case? Would an innocent person (innocent of a hate crime) get locked away for a longer period if someone thought it was a hate crime? Or would a guilty person be locked up for a lesser crime?
Personally I agree that assault is assault. There already exist descrimination laws to protect against hate crimes involving work related items. So why need a law to piggy back the current ones.
Perhaps just better clarification is needed.
None the less I applaude any attempt to remove hate. Hate is a dangerous thing, only slightly less dangerous than love.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#328572 - 09/05/04 07:26 PM
Re: Hate crime legislation. Right or wrong?
[Re: Burzaruka]
|
Insert Champagne Here
Registered: 21/07/03
Loc: without class distinction
|
i disagree with hate crimes legislation. i think that even having the legislation is discrimination. beating up a gay is the same as beating up a black guy is the same as beating up a muslim is the same as beating up some random stright white guy with no religion. they should all be treated equally as assault. assult is assult regardless of the motive. and i think that singling out motives as hatred toward a minority group (because lets face it, it really only does apply to minority groups. on the football field how many times are you heard someone reported for calling a guy a "white bastard"?) is in its own way discrimination.
minority groups claim they want to be treated equally - and yet laws like this make it perfectly clear that they are not equal in the eyes of the law! sorry, but to me thats how these laws appear.
its a bit like what my friend was saying about the gay group club thingo at his uni. he was reluctant to join because all they do is whinge and complain about discrimination when they do nothing to stop it except make it worse by claiming things like these hate crimes and that no-one likes them because they are gay; when really people dont like them for their anti social and paranoid behaviour.
(however on saying all this, if someone assaulted my gay friend i would probably want to tear their throat out and call them a homophobic bastard as i fried their liver in oil...its always different when it becomes more personal, isnt it?)
_________________________
i would have changed ***** to phallus, and claire to petey Petey
Rougie: but that's what I'm doing here
Arnwyn: what letting me adjust myself in your room?..don't you dare quote that on HoP...
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#328573 - 09/05/04 10:38 PM
Re: Hate crime legislation. Right or wrong?
[Re: Rouge Dragon]
|
Self-Flagellation Expert
Registered: 16/04/04
Loc: Bogged at CG
|
yeap, personal involvement does make things more complicated. thats why judges are on a fat paycheck, because they need to dissasociate themselves from the personal side of the trials. (ranty thing) One issue with discrimination, in particular, labelling/name calling thats always bothered me, is how/why people react the way they do. Im a combination of scots and welsh, born in australia, so im aussie, and kinda scots, kinda welsh. if someone called me a welsh prick, the welsh part is fine. the prick isnt, but thats not the point. likewise, if somone called me an white c  t, im fine with the white part of that. Im proud to be white, scots, welsh, male, agnostic, etc. Why then, if i call somone, for example, a black c t, that its a horrible thing? are they not proud of their race? if i call someone a jewish so-and-so, why does that multiply the nastyness? especially if the insult is directed at the person for them, not for their age, colour, accent, method of upbringing, number of siblings, occupation, whatever, but is purely an adjective? (i think thats the describey word) (/ranty thing)
_________________________
"beg beg grovel beg grovel"
"master"
--FSA
"There was an arse there, i couldn't help myself"
--Rougie
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#328575 - 10/05/04 06:09 AM
Re: Hate crime legislation. Right or wrong?
[Re: Durbs]
|
Classically British
Registered: 23/09/01
Loc: Epsom, Surrey, England
|
Oh - and the war is wrong and unjustified - In my opinion
(Go on - delete this post :P )
_________________________
Burner of Toast
Spinner of poi
Slacker of enormous magnitude
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#328576 - 10/05/04 07:08 AM
Re: Hate crime legislation. Right or wrong?
[Re: Durbs]
|
member
Registered: 02/04/04
|
Don't you think she's being arrogant? She passed off homosexuality being wrong as some sort of universal truth, and thinks people shouldn't be allowed to discuss how their religion says it wrong, supported by the biblical text of their religion Im simply doing the same thing with an example that applies to this board.
Just for the record im anti-war.
Sorry, if you want to pull things like that in an arguement im going to call you on it.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#328577 - 10/05/04 07:11 AM
Re: Hate crime legislation. Right or wrong?
[Re: Spanner]
|
HOP Mad Doctor
Registered: 28/05/01
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
|
Quote:
Not really. Something is definitely wrong when religious publications include content about how homosexuality is wrong in the first place, because homosexuality isn't wrong.
According to the Bible it sure is. I've read the OT three times, the NT twice, (and the Q'uran and the Book of Mormon). I have come to the inescapable conclusion that the Bible pretty explicitly bans sodomy. Not homosexuality, per se, but the practice of sodomy. So you can be gay and celibate and that's fine, but "practice" homosexuality and that's not Biblical.
It should certainly be the right of any group to write about how it's wrong to be gay (or to be Asian or to be Jewish or whatever else). After all, freedom is measured by how well a nation tolerates unpopular speech. I will spend a lifetime railing against what these people say, but I will lay down my life to defend their right to say it.
There is a line, of course. Once those publications start talking about harming others, it becomes like screaming "fire!" in a crowded theatre. It becomes harmful speech and that does need to be stopped.
I'm reminded of a rather touching story that made the national news a few years ago. There was a skinhead/White Power rally in some town and, of course, hundreds of counter-protestors turned up.
Well, a white guy with a shaved head and wearing black leather (I never was sure if he was one of the skinheads, since I know many non-skinheads who dress like that) turned up in the middle of the counter-protestors. The crowd turned on him and began to advance. Just as they moved in to beat him up, a young African-American woman flew out of the crowd and tackled the man to the ground, shielding him with her body. She stayed on top of him and told him not to move while yelling at the crowd that if anyone was going to touch this man, they'd have to go through her first.
She didn't know whether that man was a skinhead or not, but she put her life at risk to defend him because she believed in his right to exist and because she was committed to non-violence, even if meant defending her enemy.
And with her heart, she struck a blow to the skinheads ten billion times stronger than any fist could ever strike. Love is the ultimate Weapon of Mass Construction.
_________________________
-Mike )'(
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#328578 - 10/05/04 07:30 AM
Re: Hate crime legislation. Right or wrong?
[Re: Doc Lightning]
|
member
Registered: 02/04/04
|
that is an amazing story. That girl should be given a medal (im not sure what medals they have to give to civilians for acts like that down there)
also lightning I think it says more then sodomy is wrong, here's some quotes.
Quote:
Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."
Quote:
Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them"
Quote:
1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
Quote:
Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."
Also for the record, im only a 'little' bit christian and more or less a universalist. I believe in elements of trurth from all religions. By quoting these passages im not endorsing them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#328579 - 10/05/04 07:53 AM
Re: Hate crime legislation. Right or wrong?
[Re: robotface]
|
HOP Mad Doctor
Registered: 28/05/01
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
|
Robot, there are many more.
That is why, after carefully reading the entire thing 2.5 times, I have decided that I don't believe a word of it.
_________________________
-Mike )'(
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#328580 - 10/05/04 08:10 AM
Re: Hate crime legislation. Right or wrong?
[Re: robotface]
|
remembers when it was all fields round here
Registered: 27/02/03
Loc: in the works... somewhere...
|
Robotface, you have misquoted me. What I actually said was: Quote:
Something is definitely wrong when religious publications include content about how homosexuality is wrong in the first place, because homosexuality isn't wrong.
And you didn't mention the Bible as a "right wing religious publication". From what you'd written, you'd suggested more recently established publications. I would imagine it would be rather difficult to bring the writers of the Bible to court now.
Quote:
Censorship. Freedome of religion. The bible does say homosexuality is wrong, why should they not be able to write about this? Maybe we should revise it to comply with the law as it's obviously a piece of hate literature.
It's a historical text. If Christianity is to be believed, the Bible was written hundreds, likely as much as thousands of years ago. Much of it is still relevant in a contemporary sense but we now know that homosexuality isn't wrong, so there is no need for any further publication to the contrary.
Quote:
The jury is already biased agaisnt me, A prosecutor can just spew emotive liberal nonsense to win the trial. A quote of me saying something racist provided by a witness, even if I said it 5 years ago could convict me.
Well, surely that's more a case of your issues with the jury system? Yes, a prosecutor can just spew "emotive liberal nonsense", but you should have equal opportuntity to to disprove those allegations in court. As far as I am aware, juries are instructed to look at the evidence, rather than depending on their own emotions.
As for something you may have said 5 years ago, you are still responsible for what you say, however long ago it was. If, since then, your views had changed, again, in trial, you can explain yourself to that extent.
Quote:
Oh yeah and if the crime is movitated by hate, why can't they give the offender a maximum sentence? Instead of a maximum sentence with another charge ontop of it. This is why we have variable sentencing.
Because it implies that maximum sentences are reserved for crimes where the motivation is apparent, and that cases with no apparent motivation are of less significance. Because of variable sentencing, there have been vast discrepancies between identical cases.
All crime is motivated by hate in some form or another. But if the hate is likely to cause someone to commit assault on another individual (of the same gender, race or so forth) and can be dealt with by further penalisation, it would be a viable preventative measure. It won't make the hate disappear, but it could stop the same happening to someone else.
Quote:
Theres something wrong when everyone on this board talks about how the war is wrong, because it isn't wrong.
War is not inanimate. Physical war inevitably means the murder of innocents, which is never right, and therefore war is wrong.
Quote:
There already exist descrimination laws to protect against hate crimes involving work related items. So why need a law to piggy back the current ones.
Burzaruka, by some miracle, I agree with you on this point in it's most basic form. I think if the existing laws aren't working, they should be reviewed rather than making additions to them, as it is obviously causing much confusion.
I'm not saying this is how it should be, merely pondering the possible reasons why this legislation has been put forward.
And yes, white people have been discriminated against throughout history. Maybe not to the extent that black people have experienced, but it does happen.
Put it this way: I've experienced discimination because I look white, I've also been discriminated against because I have black ancestors. I dont know where I am  so I don't see the legislation itself as discriminatory because in either of those cases, had I desired, the law technically could have backed me up.
_________________________
"I thought you are man, but
you are nice woman.
yay,
:R"
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#328581 - 10/05/04 08:28 AM
Re: Hate crime legislation. Right or wrong?
[Re: robotface]
|
remembers when it was all fields round here
Registered: 27/02/03
Loc: in the works... somewhere...
|
Quote:
Don't you think she's being arrogant? She passed off homosexuality being wrong as some sort of universal truth.
I have only just read this, having been composing my reply while it was posted.
As Lightning says, there is a line. I don't disagree with the discussion of other views, but I don't agree with those who try to instil those beliefs on others.
One of the main reasons I believe this is because I think minors need protection. For example, if legislation stops the British National Party from recruiting pupils outside their own school gate, then yes, I'm all for it.
Robotface, I really hope, for your sake more than mine, that you have have misunderstood me, rather than made an attempt to deliberately twist my words by misquoting me. Anyone who knows me well, also knows that I am not homophobic in any way.
Either way, I think an apology is in order.
_________________________
"I thought you are man, but
you are nice woman.
yay,
:R"
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#328582 - 10/05/04 08:30 AM
Re: Hate crime legislation. Right or wrong?
[Re: Spanner]
|
member
Registered: 02/04/04
|
Your insistance that homosexualy isn't wrong as universal truth boarders on idiocy. I wont argue with someone who puts forward nonsense like that. How can you say "we know it's not wrong" when a huge part of the country thinks its wrong?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#328583 - 10/05/04 09:03 AM
Re: Hate crime legislation. Right or wrong?
[Re: robotface]
|
remembers when it was all fields round here
Registered: 27/02/03
Loc: in the works... somewhere...
|
OK, "we" may not know it's not wrong. But it's not wrong. What's wrong about it?
I'm still confused as to why you say I think homosexuality is wrong, then say that I'm saying the opposite.
_________________________
"I thought you are man, but
you are nice woman.
yay,
:R"
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#328584 - 10/05/04 09:13 AM
Re: Hate crime legislation. Right or wrong?
[Re: Spanner]
|
member
Registered: 02/04/04
|
Im confused by how you think im saying you think it's wrong.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#328585 - 10/05/04 09:16 AM
Re: Hate crime legislation. Right or wrong?
[Re: robotface]
|
remembers when it was all fields round here
Registered: 27/02/03
Loc: in the works... somewhere...
|
You could just re-read the thread. But for your benefit, I shall re-quote you: Quote:
Don't you think she's being arrogant? She passed off homosexuality being wrong as some sort of universal truth
Which I didn't.
_________________________
"I thought you are man, but
you are nice woman.
yay,
:R"
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#328586 - 10/05/04 09:43 AM
Re: Hate crime legislation. Right or wrong?
[Re: Spanner]
|
member
Registered: 02/04/04
|
Sure the inconsistancy with other statements I made would leave you to believe it's a typing mistake. I did reread the thread, and didn't notice the mistake.
Also uh.. gay bashing thread? Right. Im not even going to respond untill you actually read a damn thing I said.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#328587 - 10/05/04 10:00 AM
Re: Hate crime legislation. Right or wrong? *DELETED*
[Re: robotface]
|
(...trusty steed of the rodeo midget...)
Registered: 23/09/02
Loc: the state of flux
|
Post deleted by squarefish
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#328588 - 10/05/04 10:01 AM
Re: Hate crime legislation. Right or wrong?
[Re: robotface]
|
HOP Mad Doctor
Registered: 28/05/01
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
|
Guys?
Read carefully. If I'm reading correctly, I think that Robotface is saying the exact opposite of what everyone here seems to be thinking.
I see no gay-bashing coming out of it at all, actually. Quite the opposite.
So if I'm right (and I sure hope I am!) then I think some retractions and apologies are probably in order.
_________________________
-Mike )'(
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#328589 - 10/05/04 10:05 AM
Re: Hate crime legislation. Right or wrong?
[Re: squarefish]
|
member
Registered: 02/04/04
|
Quote:
Quote:
lightning I think it (the bible -s-) says more then sodomy is wrong, here's some quotes.
Quote:
Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."
Quote:
Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them"
Quote:
1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
Quote:
Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."
Also for the record, im only a 'little' bit christian and more or less a universalist. I believe in elements of trurth from all religions. By quoting these passages im not endorsing them.
Really? that wasn't an example of gay bashing? it sure looked like it from where I stand......
How would it sit with you if I started quoting Mein Kampf or some of the revisionist bullsh*t that gets spread around by the various neo-nazi groups saying that the holocaust was faked by the Jewish peoples? 
I could post entire pages that stuff here and at the end have a little disclaimer saying that I didn't believe any of it.
But you can be sure that the moderators and everyone else here would have something to say about my posting it!
hehe I cant help but laugh at this.
How do you remember to breath?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#328590 - 10/05/04 10:06 AM
Re: Hate crime legislation. Right or wrong?
[Re: Doc Lightning]
|
HOP Mad Doctor
Registered: 28/05/01
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
|
I also want to say that quoting parts of the Bible that condemn homosexuality does not mean that the person quoting them is a homophobe.
I know this because I routinely quote those very same passages and I sure hope it's quite clear that I'm not a homophobe.
Fact is that the Bible does say these things. I consider them a condemnation of any Biblical religion before I consider them a condemnation of homosexuality.
_________________________
-Mike )'(
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#328591 - 10/05/04 10:16 AM
Re: Hate crime legislation. Right or wrong?
[Re: robotface]
|
(...trusty steed of the rodeo midget...)
Registered: 23/09/02
Loc: the state of flux
|
Actually robotface, if you'll check i've deleted the two posts in question. I re-read the thread, and realised that I had indeed gotten the wrong end of the stick  . And as for remembering to breath, thats actualy a bit of an effort at the moment, I'm at 4500 meters at the moment (approx 14000 feet) and feeling the effects more than maybe I realised. So: Mea Culpa, sorry for the misunderstanding, you caught me on a really bad day. I'm not going to post any more replies on the boards until my brain adjusts to the height. Once again, sorry 
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#328592 - 10/05/04 10:18 AM
Re: Hate crime legislation. Right or wrong?
[Re: squarefish]
|
member
Registered: 02/04/04
|
hehe it's ok.
How long does it take to boil water there?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
but I just couldn't quite believe reading that bit of it - perhaps I missed something... 
Previous Topic
Index