pigpot's Pot

[AndyK]

light years are a measure of DISTANCE, not time

Actually - it's a measure of both - the distance traveled at a specific speed in a specific time.

Specifically: traveling at the speed of light for one year = 1 light year.

Ironically, as I vaguely understand the science behind it, apparently the speed of light isn't so constant after all.

As you just said "the DISTANCE traveled", not a measure of both. The speed is given (speed of light in a vacuum), the time is specified (X years) and the result is distance.

To play with smaller numbers, one LightSecond is approximately 186,000 miles. Pure distance.

Similarly, one could express a distance as "six South Carolina I-95 Minutes" being 7 miles.

It is a common mistake. Many people think that since the term includes the word "years" that it is a measure of time.

[Hyrion]

As you just said "the DISTANCE traveled", not a measure of both.

You're right, I was thinking more along the lines of the formula itself.

If someone told you that you had to travel 3 lightyears, and you knew the speed of your ship was .00001 of the speed of light, then you'd be able to use the formula that's normally used to calculate the distance of 1 light year to figure out how long it'd take you to arrive at your destination.

[pigpot]

From the first post about this.. if you had bothered to read/research/investigate .. you would have seen.....

A self-declared member of the Shire Society, Novack is charged with threatening a woman in Bayonne on Tuesday allegedly telling her "that his friends (would) gang rape her then beat her to death," the criminal complaint says.

Which is both a violent act.. and (I would say) loosely a 'terroristic' statement.

terrorism
[ter-uh-riz-uh m]
noun
1.
the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
2.
the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3.
a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

Here - a LINK for you, with the definition (of general) that I pulled and quoted.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorism

I don't need your definitions "Llwellyn". IF that's what he's done then he deserves EXACTLY what he gets. Harm and a term if not indefinitely away from everybody.

The third point you quote though is pathetic and fails ridiculously and does not even meet the most insubstantial requirements of an argument.

3.
a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

Ever heard of lawful rebellion? Nothing wrong with that against a tyrannical "Government" and that's by "their" own rules.

Points 1 and 2,

1.
the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
2.
the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.

are exactly what the present governments use.

[notorial dissent]

More of your usual BS I see. There is no such thing unless you happen to be Baron having a tif with your King, and that never ended well, Magna Carta or no, as well as having long been repealed.

[Pottapaug1938]

Pigpot is like a petulant little child who whines "I doan' wanna DO that, an' you can't MAKE me!" when the other children ask him to play by rules which have existed, by common consent, for long since before he arrived on the scene. When he whines about "lawful rebellion" against "tyrannical governments" and about how governments use "violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes", and how present governments induce, in us, a "state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization", he is merely showing that he has his undies in a twist because the mean ol' gummint won't let him do as he pleases, when he chooses to do it, and entertains the "Lexington-Concord Fantasy" of striking down said tyrannical governments, along with his pals.

Finally, he entertains us with "[n]othing in this post is legal or lawful advice, it is only used for the sake of entertainment. All 'rights' are reserved by this poster." That reminds me of the people who say things like "no offense, but..." and then proceed to offend the hell out of the listener; but I'll bet that, to him, those are "magic words" which protect him from any liability for the consequences of his words, and give him certain rights over us if we quote him.

[notorial dissent]

I think if you just leave it at "petulant little child" and if you add ignorant to the admixture you've pretty well got it all covered.

[arayder]

From the first post about this.. if you had bothered to read/research/investigate .. you would have seen.....
terrorism
[ter-uh-riz-uh m]
noun

a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

. . .Ever heard of lawful rebellion? Nothing wrong with that against a tyrannical "Government" and that's by "their" own rules.

Well, there you have it folks. The idea of lawful rebellion, a prime tenet of "the movement", formerly posed to us as at least somewhat peaceful and lawful now, it seems according to pigpot, includes the use of terrorism!

So the question is whether our visitor, part of a peaceful movement, has simply lost his moral compass, or whether "the movement" is just ISIS without the cojones.

[pigpot]

I think if you just leave it at "petulant little child" and if you add ignorant to the admixture you've pretty well got it all covered.

Yes a

"petulant little child"

as you put it who chucked 2 rozzers of the property a couple of nights ago. It was a right laugh. You ought to have seen them walking away shrugging their shoulders.

[pigpot]

So Santos showed up one day asking for a place to hide and they asked no questions?

So if you didn't "KNOW" Santos... how would you KNOW he WAS "Santos"?



Prove it!

I helped a couple of "cops" run up "their" own ass a couple of days ago. Hopefully I'll get somebody to deal with the individual / personal details of the individuals in the video.

It's funny to see them walk away down the drive of my home shrugging "their" shoulders as "they" go.

[AndyK]

Regarding the previous: Typos plus dialect = meaningless post.

[pigpot]

Again, moving or completely ignoring the goalposts..
The person in question - -A self-declared member of the Shire Society, Novack is charged with threatening a woman in Bayonne on Tuesday allegedly telling her "that his friends (would) gang rape her then beat her to death," the criminal complaint says. -

Threatening a woman.. an act or attempt to terrorize someone. Glad you can skip the pertinent information to attempt to create a justification for .. a rape threat, and a threat of death.

Maybe "Novak" was terrorised by the woman before he terrorised her. Let's get the context correct first. You've just jumped on someone because of their link to the wonderful "Shire Society". It's a bit too ad hominem really. Leave your opinions (like I'll leave my wonderful "Shire Society" thing) at the door and lets just deal with facts.

[Llwellyn]

And again.. missing the goalposts completely.

The quote, which again, you missed and dodged by claiming it' about the Shire Society..(I could care less about the Shire Society and whatever it is about.. I was quoting the direct original reporting link.. which you ignored and missed) NO, it' about the fact that he is currently in a jail cell, awaiting trial due to being charged with uttering threats etc. If the woman involved had done so.. uttering the same thing back to him.. she would also have been charged with uttering a death threat and violent act of rape.
Again, missing the facts you have, as they have been posted.. dodging and justifying .. for your own sake.

Oh and MAYBE Novak was 'terrorized' by the woman first.. hmm Well, first.. Since She did it, HE could do it.. an Eye for an Eye theory.. ?? (which simply leaves everyone blind) .. 2 wrongs don't make a right.. I could go on but I know it is wasted time and effort, you're not here to find or even look for facts, you just want to spout off and blather away, and skip anything even possibly relevant.

As for the 'ad hominem' -- you are laterally attacking me, for posting what information and facts relevant to the situation, in an attempt to answer your posting and question, by claiming I'm all about the Shire Society (assumably negative?) which yet again, was the original report and quote, not mine. If you had bothered to do even a smudge of researching, you would have seen that.

(edited for some clarity in an attempt to limit your confusion)

[pigpot]

And again.. missing the goalposts completely.

The quote, which again, you missed and dodged by claiming it' about the Shire Society.. NO, it' about the fact that he is currently in a jail cell, awaiting trial due to being charged with uttering threats etc. If the woman involved had done so.. uttering the same thing back to him.. she would also have been charged with uttering a death threat and violent act of rape.

I'm getting to post all over the place. I have no problem with my posts being moved but maybe the duplication is becoming a problem. Just letting people know. Ta!

Again, missing the facts you have, as they have been posted.. dodging and justifying .. for your own sake.

Not at all "Llwellyn" not at all. Nothing moved and nothing ignored. I would like to know more (like / as any "good" lawyer would do, if there is such a thing) about whether anything provoked the allegation because if there is something (anything) that mitigates why the alleged threat was made then the threat is well mitigated. If not then he shouldn't have said the alleged threat, if that's what happened. What if she said she was going to do the same to him but said it before he did?

What then? That's a game changer and the burden of proof as we all know lies with / upon he or she who affirms. She needs to prove he said the alleged words.

[pigpot]

Wow in "Wisconsin"...

What Happens If You Drive Away From a Police Officer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7R0iXNOY5A

Well played people. Well played indeed.

[rumpelstilzchen]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... arges.html
Amazing what "Ceylon" is saying eh. And this is mainstream as well.

Since when was Janner a Nottingham councillor?
Also you obviously do not understand what "presumption of innocence" means. You have pre-judged. No surprises there.

[pigpot]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... arges.html
Amazing what "Ceylon" is saying eh. And this is mainstream as well.

Since when was Janner a Nottingham councillor?
Also you obviously do not understand what "presumption of innocence" means. You have pre-judged. No surprises there.

It's not truly amazing as to the side you have taken concerning this matter.

It is what it is and "the people" will see it how they see it. I've always maintained I'm not on the side of people like you. That's okay. You are only "here" for a while. When you've gone your thoughts will still remain in the others that have surrounded you during your time here. My thoughts of FREEDOM (not being a seven letter word but a concept or / and / an idea) or your thoughts of freedom being a whatever you "see" it as.

I think you are losing the not just the battle but most importantly the war. You sound like a worried, old barrister. An old man who can't cope with the way people like me think. That's okay "RUMPS" as natural law will sort everything out.

Take care eh!

[longdog]

How is pointing old that Janner is not and never has been a Nottingham councillor "taking a side"?

As always your rambling screed has precisely fuck all to do with what you have quoted.

You might think you are making a point but what I see is this...

It is what it is and "the people" will see it how they see it. I've always maintained I'm not on the side of people like you.

Ah yes but when my dog has fleas I eat a bar of chocolate and balance a DVD on a unicorn with wholemeal bread and a helicopter.

[rumpelstilzchen]

It's not truly amazing as to the side you have taken concerning this matter.

I have not taken any side and nor have I indicated that I have taken any side. I merely pointed out that there is a presumption of innocence until proven otherwise. You however appear to have abandoned that principle.
Ceylon posts a rant about Nottingham City Council and paedophiles then you attempted to lump Janner into the same mix. The two situations are unrelated. It is not unusual for someone with a pea for a brain to use a story such as Janner in an attempt to boost a position such as that held by Ceylon. But that argument fails. Even if Janner is found to be guilty of every accusation that has no bearing on Ceylon's claims regarding Nottingham City Council. You engage in logical fallacies.
If you believe there is a link between Ceylon's claims about Nottingham Council and Lord Janner please by all means share it with us. Would it be presumptious of me to assume your reply would be: "They're all at it" Hmmm?

[NG3]

Pigpot doesn't know what he's saying. Pigpot actually has nothing to say. He's bored, he's lonely, he's posting random stuff to get a reaction to self-validate his existence.

It's like when a 4 year old chats rubbish to his parents just because he wants to talk and be noticed.

[pigpot]

It's not truly amazing as to the side you have taken concerning this matter.

I have not taken any side and nor have I indicated that I have taken any side. I merely pointed out that there is a presumption of innocence until proven otherwise. You however appear to have abandoned that principle.
Ceylon posts a rant about Nottingham City Council and paedophiles then you attempted to lump Janner into the same mix. The two situations are unrelated. It is not unusual for someone with a pea for a brain to use a story such as Janner in an attempt to boost a position such as that held by Ceylon. But that argument fails. Even if Janner is found to be guilty of every accusation that has no bearing on Ceylon's claims regarding Nottingham City Council. You engage in logical fallacies.
If you believe there is a link between Ceylon's claims about Nottingham Council and Lord Janner please by all means share it with us. Would it be presumptious of me to assume your reply would be: "They're all at it" Hmmm?

You truly have taken a side "RUMPS". It's very clear in this case. "Ceylon" commented about "them", a loose affiliation of perverted people in positions of "power" that have been very abusive over the years. "Jimmy Saville" et al. Remember when David Icke called out Edward Heath over his "things" on Burnham Beaches. Old 'Ted was very much alive then "Rumps".

Why are you worried? Those that are / have been involved in this stuff need to be very worried until they die because people are coming for them. These people aren't happy. They have memories that they don't want but it's happened. It's done AND they are after retribution and I hope they get it.

Some people need to be scared. Very scared about their immediate future as others WILL NOT BE BOTHERED ABOUT THE law.

Information

You cannot delete posts in this forum.

Good idea.....