Jump to content
Lobwedgephil

5 HPD Officers Shot

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Rip76 said:

suspects

News articles call them suspects too. Why?  My understanding is that has become SOP to lessen the chance of a defamation suit.  These guys aren't going to be suing.  Do their heirs inherit the right to sue for slander on their behalf?

Google says no.  ""You can't defame the dead" is an often-repeated legal chestnut that restates the general rule that only the living can sue for damages to their reputation. The continued force of this rule explains why many defamatory "tell-all" biographies appear after a famous figure has died. Georgia's law is typical -- it recognizes no cause of action for slander of a dead person, but allows the person's family to continue to prosecute a legal action for slander that the deceased started before he died."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, the said:

Marijuana maybe, war on meth and crack cocaine is unnecessary? I guess you don't know anyone that's been shot for ten bucks because the meth head absolutely needed that money to get high. 

Oh got the money and still fired a shot anyway. Fuck those addicts.

as the brother of a (former?) addict, i stand by my statement. and yes, my sister was all up into meth, caught a felony possession charge, and has been largely unemployable since then.

war on drugs ruins more lives than it saves. my sister learned more about drug distribution in gatesville than she did on the street.

Edited by hayden_horn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, the said:

She's unemployable because she chooses to be unemployable. I own restaurants and know about a dozen others that own about 1500 restaurants around the country that do not do a background check when hiring employees because of low unemployment. 

She needs to go apply and will be hired on the spot.  

This isn't a "war on drugs", its enforcing the law so that these short term decision making assholes don't ruin it for the rest of us because they must get high right this second. 

Fuck them.

Nah brother Fuck You.  You're unhinged.  And don't start your shit.  I've lived it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, the said:

She's unemployable because she chooses to be unemployable. I own restaurants and know about a dozen others that own about 1500 restaurants around the country that do not do a background check when hiring employees because of low unemployment. 

She needs to go apply and will be hired on the spot.  

This isn't a "war on drugs", its enforcing the law so that these short term decision making assholes don't ruin it for the rest of us because they must get high right this second. 

Fuck them.

Also tell me more about the 12 or so people you know that own over 1500 restaurants but can't seem to figure out how to hire people.  Tell me more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, the said:

DGAF. Its in black and white, if you dont want to go to jail stay the fuck away from drugs. You CHOOSE to as you call "live it" then live with the consequences. 

Own up...brother.

You're emotional.  Apparently you've been hurt.  Which I understand and respect.  But you're shallow and you really do not know what you're talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, the said:

These are large franchise groups that own hundreds of restaurants. They do not do background checks for employees. All we ask for is for them to show up on time and sober but a lot of times even that is too much to ask. 

 

But but war on drugs, fuck you.

 

Large franchises, which you're saying you own, don't bother to do background checks?... And you're blaming other people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, the said:

In between salting the fries. But not Arbys they're all owned by US Beef corp. 

I have nothing to do with that. Also their AUV are pathetically low with high labor costs. No thank you.

Why do you not do background checks?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The" has a shitty take, film at 11:00.  Back to the topic.....the story is coming out about the residents who shot the cops.  Not much of a criminal record (seriously, a bad check charge for one, that's it).  They shot the cops upon the cops making entry.

I'm curious as to whether the cops who made entry were in uniform.  And whether they announced themselves as cops.  Because, otherwise, I can see a counter-narrative pretty easily -- a couple who lives in a bad neighborhood had a group of armed men kick down their door and make entry.  And they defended themselves and their homes.

I'm FAR from saying that's what happened.  I'm just saying that the circumstances so far are at least causing an eyebrow to be raised.

And of course:

Quote

The exchange of gunfire was not captured on video, as Acevedo said officers do not wear body cameras when making entry while serving a warrant.

 

Edited by Brisketexan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, the said:

 

Cost prohibitive given the turnover, immediate need for employees and turn around time.

I'm not exactly sure where you're coming from. Making excuses and blaming other people that's what you're doing.

But hell we all do it sometimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, the said:

I bet you think holding drunk drivers accountable is a "shitty" take as well. A hug should do it.

Activities that put other people at material risk of harm should be crimes.

Activities that do not put other people at material risk of harm should not be crimes.

That's why it's not a crime for me to have 5 glasses of whisky and listen to Don Williams on my porch, but it IS a crime for me to have the same 5 glasses of whisky and drive to HEB.

Also, fuck off -- there's plenty of war on drugs threads around here.  Go pants yourself on one of those, and let the rest of us talk about the subject of THIS thread -- a shootout that is looking a bit odd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, the said:

I bet you think holding drunk drivers accountable is a "shitty" take as well. A hug should do it.

Shitty gamblers should be held accountable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

"The" has a shitty take, film at 11:00.  Back to the topic.....the story is coming out about the residents who shot the cops.  Not much of a criminal record (seriously, a bad check charge for one, that's it).  They shot the cops upon the cops making entry.

I'm curious as to whether the cops who made entry were in uniform.  And whether they announced themselves as cops.  Because, otherwise, I can see a counter-narrative pretty easily -- a couple who lives in a bad neighborhood had a group of armed men kick down their door and make entry.  And they defended themselves and their homes.

I'm FAR from saying that's what happened.  I'm just saying that the circumstances so far are at least causing an eyebrow to be raised.

And of course:

 

Acevedo stated last night the undercover agents also had 6 uniformed officers with them. They did announce police were coming in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, the said:

Nah, like I said its cost of business. Just like going to jail should be for these addicts.

Rightfully so.

And you're the one crying.  Like Jimmy Snuka in your grape mess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, thestud said:

 



I’m no legal eagle, but this seems about the dumbest possible thing you could say. What exactly is the down side to having body cameras on in this instance?

I imagine it's pretty hard to wear a body camera when you are an undercover agent. However the uniformed officers should have been wearing them. We don't know how close they were to the house when the shooting happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, the said:

So doing meth, crack and cocaine and creating a market for those that might lead to kids getting hold of them isn't putting other people and their property at a material risk of harm?

You fuck off.

First, I'm negging you because you're on the wrong fucking thread.

Second, I wish I could neg you again because you're stupid.

More lives are ended/destroyed by alcoholism -- through destruction of relationships, alcohol poisoning/alcohol related illnesses and early death, and alcohol-related deaths -- than are ended/destroyed by drugs.

I don't want my kids being addicted to alcohol.  I don't want them getting drunk and beating their spouse.  I also don't want them to be addicted to meth or to beat their spouse when they're high.  We don't ban booze, even though it's significantly more likely to cause those outcomes.

People are going to engage in unlikable, unhealthy behaviors that the rest of us don't like.  It's part of being human -- you can outlaw it all you want, the hard truth is that you'll never change it, or even reduce the rate of use and abuse (go ahead and see how well the War on Drugs has fared in that regard....spoiler: the war is over, drugs won).  All we can and should do is have laws regarding behavior that is directly harmful to others, AND treat drug use as a health issue (which has a materially better ROI).  But, you know, pound the table and say "DRUGS ARE BAD" as loudly as you can, and pass even more laws.  It will have the same effect that the past 40+ years have had on reducing the availability, use, and abuse of drugs: ZERO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, the said:

And I'd agree with you if you were for prohibition. I hate alcohol enough to not touch it. 

Now as far as the War on Drugs is concerned, you don't know the other side of the coin. We do not know what the outcome would've been had we not fought it. There is a very high likelihood(just like alcohol) that results would've been way worse. 

Things aren't great as they stand but how about we not make things worse? 

Interestingly, we already have data on drug use and abuse from BEFORE the ramped up "war on drugs" started.  And again....it shows very little movement.

But hey, as an upside, we've created a huge class of criminals whose primary crime was getting wasted with their friends (like I did on Saturday night, except I used whisky), we've built a massive drain on our financial resources (all them cops and prisons ain't free), we've all but killed the 4th amendment ("I smelled the distinct odor of marijuana"" allows a cop to search you, your home, your car, etc., at damned near any time), and we've destabilized multiple nation-states to our south by funding a massive black-market commodity that dwarfs any legal enterprise that folks could engage in down there, and in the process, created a body count in the tens of thousands as enterprises fight over turf (legal enterprises use legislatures and court rooms to accomplish this; illegal ones use AKs).  Lot of winning there.  For the HUGE upside of.....yeah, no real change in the rate of drug use or abuse.

Opposing the war on drugs doesn't mean you like illegal drugs and want people to use.  It just means that you can learn from our mistakes, and realize when something doesn't work and has utterly failed.

Oh, and I used the shorthand of "stupid" because 1) I get popped for verbosity, so I choose being pithy when I can, and 2) it seemed self-evident.

Edited by Brisketexan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, the said:

So doing meth, crack and cocaine and creating a market for those that might lead to kids getting hold of them isn't putting other people and their property at a material risk of harm?

If your kid is doing meth or crack your kid is the problem, not the people creating the market. 

I was deeply in the drug/addict circles in high school and never did anything but smoke a bunch of pot and drink on the weekends. I didn't try coke until I was out of college. 

The deterioration of self-accountability in this country is embarrassing. "My dubmass kid smokes crack, let's lock up all the crack dealers for life at taxpayers expense! Oh wait, my kid's still a fucking idiot. Maybe I should have actually parented him."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, thestud said:

 

 


Except it’s not. Their vests have built in holsters for their cameras. No excuse not to be wearing them. My question was is there a legal explanation for their nonexistence in this instance?

 

 

Well I'm not an expert on helicopters, drugs, and police regulations like others are on this thread. There is probably a logical reason why undercover agents don't wear body cams. Perhaps email Acevedo and you might get an answer. 

Edited by mycox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

"The" has a shitty take, film at 11:00.  Back to the topic.....the story is coming out about the residents who shot the cops.  Not much of a criminal record (seriously, a bad check charge for one, that's it).  They shot the cops upon the cops making entry.

I'm curious as to whether the cops who made entry were in uniform.  And whether they announced themselves as cops.  Because, otherwise, I can see a counter-narrative pretty easily -- a couple who lives in a bad neighborhood had a group of armed men kick down their door and make entry.  And they defended themselves and their homes.

 I'm FAR from saying that's what happened.  I'm just saying that the circumstances so far are at least causing an eyebrow to be raised.

And of course:

 

It wasn't a no knock.  They announced.   And they were wearing uniforms.  And a lot of them got shot.  Let's not cloud up who the good guys were in this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, the said:

Its funny that the same stalwarts who are for less control on drugs would turn around and preach heavy control on guns. Easy access to drugs, alcohol and/or guns never leads to anything good. The only true example of prohibiting something and then making it legal is alcohol, and the data and the impact of it looks worse after legalizing than what you preach on war on drugs. 

Nope.  Not for "heavy" control of any of those things.

Reasonable treatment of all as public health issues?  Sure.

I have a well-stocked liquor cabinet.  And a well-stocked gun safe.  And if recreational weed is legalized, I might keep some of that on hand (haven't touched the stuff since I was in high school, but there are some weeks when I could probably benefit from some mellowing).  I believe in reasonable regulation of all of those items from the perspective of public health.

But I'm not for banning whisky.  It's dumb, and proven not to work.

I'm not for bannings guns.  Second Amendment aside, it won't work here.

I'm not for banning drugs.  It's dumb, and proven not to work.

HOWEVER, you did an EXCELLENT job of applying a "Straw Man" fallacy (attributing a false position to me, then knocking it down).  So, that whole "stupid' label thing?  Yeah, I'm good with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

It wasn't a no knock.  They announced.   And they were wearing uniforms.  And a lot of them got shot.  Let's not cloud up who the good guys were in this one.

They announced during a breach, which means it is the definition of a no knock. 

 

Quote

In the United States, a no-knock warrant is a warrant issued by a judge that allows law enforcement officers to enter a property without immediate prior notification of the residents, such as by knocking or ringing a doorbell. In most cases, law enforcement will identify themselves just before they forcefully enter the property.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

It wasn't a no knock.  They announced.   And they were wearing uniforms.  And a lot of them got shot.  Let's not cloud up who the good guys were in this one.

I sure would like some audio/video of the event to verify such announcement.  And hollering "POLICE!" as you break down a door isn't exactly a bona-fide announcement -- that can just as easily be a bunch of shitheads using that to buy them a few seconds of confusion on my part to shoot my ass as they rob my house.

As I understand (and again, I'm looking for any additional info), the cops shot were 1) all on the initial entry team, and those cops were 2) NOT in uniform.  There were uniformed cops as part of the backup team.  Again, I'd like to sort those facts out with specificity.

I'm just putting this all in the hopper with the fact that the shooters were in their 50s and had no meaningful criminal record before this.  That doesn't exactly match up with "house of drug dealers armed to the teeth and ready to kill."  They shot at the cops with a .357 and a shotgun.  Not uncommon "home defense" weapons.  I just want to know more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, the said:

The only true example of prohibiting something and then making it legal is alcohol, and the data and the impact of it looks worse after legalizing than what you preach on war on drugs. 

Worse after legalizing? You're a fucking moron. The reason the prohibition amendment was repealed was because it was creating a huge drain on the economy, specifically federal tax revenue during the great depression. Despite that, it did wonders to sober up the country and reduce rates of alcoholism, alcohol related disease and mental illness. 

It didn't reduce crime - if anything it empowered it.

It didn't keep people that really wanted to drink from drinking.

Were prohibition to have continued, it would have turned the entire alcohol industry into a black-market enterprise that would have made the current drug markets in the US pale in comparison.

And now, in 2019, the rates of alcoholism, alcohol related deaths and alcohol-related abuse and crime are declining. ESPECIALLY in states where marijuana has been legalized or made easier to obtain legally. 

So whatever "data" and "impact" you are citing is horseshit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I sure would like some audio/video of the event to verify such announcement.  And hollering "POLICE!" as you break down a door isn't exactly a bona-fide announcement -- that can just as easily be a bunch of shitheads using that to buy them a few seconds of confusion on my part to shoot my ass as they rob my house.

As I understand (and again, I'm looking for any additional info), the cops shot were 1) all on the initial entry team, and those cops were 2) NOT in uniform.  There were uniformed cops as part of the backup team.  Again, I'd like to sort those facts out with specificity.

I'm just putting this all in the hopper with the fact that the shooters were in their 50s and had no meaningful criminal record before this.  That doesn't exactly match up with "house of drug dealers armed to the teeth and ready to kill."  They shot at the cops with a .357 and a shotgun.  Not uncommon "home defense" weapons.  I just want to know more.

Also, HPD has not said they found any black tar heroin that was the basis for the warrant, only marijuana and some sort of white powder.  They also didn't say how much marijuana and white powder they found, leading me to believe that it wasn't much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I sure would like some audio/video of the event to verify such announcement.  And hollering "POLICE!" as you break down a door isn't exactly a bona-fide announcement -- that can just as easily be a bunch of shitheads using that to buy them a few seconds of confusion on my part to shoot my ass as they rob my house.

As I understand (and again, I'm looking for any additional info), the cops shot were 1) all on the initial entry team, and those cops were 2) NOT in uniform.  There were uniformed cops as part of the backup team.  Again, I'd like to sort those facts out with specificity.

I'm just putting this all in the hopper with the fact that the shooters were in their 50s and had no meaningful criminal record before this.  That doesn't exactly match up with "house of drug dealers armed to the teeth and ready to kill."  They shot at the cops with a .357 and a shotgun.  Not uncommon "home defense" weapons.  I just want to know more.

You can also add that one of the shooters retreated into a back room, and the proceeded to shoot at the officers a 2nd time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, the said:

 The only true example of prohibiting something and then making it legal is alcohol, and the data and the impact of it looks worse after legalizing than what you preach on war on drugs. 

In 2001 Portugal decriminalized the possession of all drugs for personal use, primarily because at the time it was estimated that 1% of the population was addicted to heroin.  Since 2001 the number of drug related HIV infections has decreased by 90%.  In addition, the number of adults who have done drugs within the most recent year has decreased every year since the decriminalization.  Portugal now has the second lowest rate of drug related deaths in the European Union.  In Portugal, drug addiction is treated a health problem rather than a criminal one.  The percentage of drug related offenders in Portuguese prisons has fallen from over 40% to around 20%.  This has allowed money to be shifted to drug treatment programs which have proven to be far more effective than locking people up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, the said:

Proven not to work? What is your threshold of "proven not to work"? No one consumes it ever? Extinction?

Whisky legalization has definitely made things worse than what they were in the past. By your own admission alcohol has a myriad of negatives and based on a number of studies, higher than what they were in the past. What hasn't worked is legalization of it, not the other way around.

Reasonable treatment? Define it will ya?

What you've done is an EXCELLENT job of  sticking to your usual reddit garbage speaking points. Yeah sorry I asked you if you were six, I might have overestimated. 

Data. It's your friend. Or, in your case, your enemy.

Quote

Whisky legalization has definitely made things worse than what they were in the past.

Per capita annual consumption of alcohol in 1919 (pre-prohibition): .8 gallons.

Per capita annual consumption of alcohol in 1929 (during the heart of prohibition): 1.3 gallons.

Quote

By your own admission alcohol has a myriad of negatives and based on a number of studies, higher than what they were in the past. What hasn't worked is legalization of it, not the other way around.

Nope.  See the data above -- which is but one snapshot.  Prohibition DOES.  NOT.  WORK.  The data from alcohol prohibition shows it.  Prohibition doesn't materially reduce either 1) usage or 2) addiction.  THAT'S what I mean by "proven not to work."  The data from the war on drugs shows it as well -- usage and addiction rates are steady from before prohibition.

Making vice illegal doesn't make it go away.  Just as an aside, it's never worked on prostitution, either -- that's been banned in numerous societies for centuries.  Yet you and I could easily, by the end of the day during any period of prohibition, get a bottle of whisky, a bag of weed, and a hooker (and hey, probably have a helluva time).

And my "talking points" aren't from the Reddit stoner forum.  They're from places like CONSERVATIVE think tanks, The Economist, etc.  Every rational, data-thinking person who has looked at this issues knows that not only has the war on drugs failed, it's utterly counterproductive.

And, yesterday, it got 4 cops shot.  I'd rather they not get shot.  I'd rather they were on our streets protecting us from folks actively looking to hurt people.

 

And here's some more stuff, just for fun:

https://www.economist.com/leaders/2001/07/26/the-case-for-legalisation

https://www.economist.com/leaders/2009/03/05/how-to-stop-the-drug-wars

drug-spending-v-addiction.gif

Edited by Brisketexan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, the said:

So doing meth, crack and cocaine and creating a market for those that might lead to kids getting hold of them isn't putting other people and their property at a material risk of harm?

You fuck off.

giphy.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

First, I'm negging you because you're on the wrong fucking thread.

Did you also neg Hayden and all the others making anti-WOD comments on this thread, or just the one guy bothering to take them on?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, HOOKEM4 said:

Completely unrelated question. Is it possible to crowd source people?

Yes, and too often it gets abused by thin-skinned types trying to shut down viewpoints they disagree with, primarily in the Cloak Room, and to a lesser extent in any discussion where someone dares to defend keeping drugs illegal.

I don't necessarily agree with the comments of 'the', but I plus repped every post in this thread that I saw him negged.  Some emotional types need to grow up and stop negging someone having a different opinion on a controversial subject.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, the said:

Its at 2.34 today. Highest since prohibition. 

You can't even read the charts you are referencing. Quit posting.

And who gives a fuck about overall consumption rates? That doesn't prove anything. 2.34 is tame compared to every country in Europe. You should be looking at statistics like drunk driving accidents/deaths, alcohol related disease etc.

I mean just look at this list ffs:

https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/who-drinks-the-most-alcohol-consumption-by-country.html

The US doesn't even come close to those countries.

Edited by ztejas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, the said:

And I'd agree with you if you were for prohibition. I hate alcohol enough to not touch it. 

Now as far as the War on Drugs is concerned, you don't know the other side of the coin. We do not know what the outcome would've been had we not fought it. There is a very high likelihood(just like alcohol) that results would've been way worse. 

Things aren't great as they stand but how about we not make things worse? 

Well, alcohol is fully legal and wreaks its havoc. 

What we don't have with alcohol is five revenuers getting shot serving a warrant on a bootlegger's shack. 

We don't spend billions of dollars on a completely ineffectual campaign to curtail the supply.

We don't see entire Central and South American countries held hostage by boozelords.

But we do have the largest incarceration rate, both gross and per capita, in the entire fucking world, including police states with much larger populations.

Because by most accounts the drug war doesn't actually affect the supply of unlawful drugs in this country, just the price and affiliated crime, maybe we'd be better off letting Purdue Pharma sell regulated crack, meth, and heroin than creating Pablo Escobar and Joaquin Guzman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, the said:

Agreed, data is my friend. Notice the spike in consumption of alcohol from an average of under 2 from 1916-1943. Its at 2.34 today. Highest since prohibition. 

https://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/surveillance102/tab1_13.htm

Stop quoting whatever garbage you read on reddit.

The only thing I ever look at on reddit is boobs.  But, solid logical fallacy again -- well-done, perfect consistency.  I guess you ignored the citations to The Economist.  That's fair.  It hardly ever has pictures of boobs.

And indeed, look at your data.  Look at alcohol usage PRE-prohibition (peaking in the 2.5 to 2.6 range).  And then look at where it went as soon as we began post-war recovery: 2.25 to 2.3.  Then a dip...and then by the lat 60s, in the 2.5 range, topping out at 2.76, and now down and steady in the 2.2 to 2.3 range.

And.....look at the data on how successful the "war on drugs" has been.  We actually have data.  Not feelings, not "think of the children," but data.  Data that answers the question of "so, this whole massive enforcement, interdiction, and incarceration effort....what kind of effect has that had on reducing the rate of drug use and addiction?"  You know, the direct question that should be asked with respect to ANY policy initiative.

There's also plenty of data the other way -- see the Portugal example.

See what the effect of legaliation was there (initial spike right after, then a plummet in usage):

MzVkNzFjMzMyMCMvMm1rT3NIMXVYMlF5THRoUDJD

Or these examples and data:

w78qxxfb-1410262357.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q

heroin_price.0.png

durg_deaths_chartsf.jpg

 

chartprison-and-war-on-drugs.jpg

Oh, and as a bonus, it has a wildly disparate racial effect!

rates_drug_use_sale_1080_737_80.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, clapclapclap said:

Yes, and too often it gets abused by thin-skinned types trying to shut down viewpoints they disagree with, primarily in the Cloak Room, and to a lesser extent in any discussion where someone dares to defend keeping drugs illegal.

I don't necessarily agree with the comments of 'the', but I plus repped every post in this thread that I saw him negged.  Some emotional types need to grow up and stop negging someone having a different opinion on a controversial subject.

 

This fellow speaks truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stop quoting whatever garbage you read on reddit.


You know people bag on the reddit formatting a lot, but that little nested comment feature is really useful.

Hypothetically - If you’re reading about a local event on say, 5 HPD officers getting shot, and some guy has a 20 post sidebar about, I don’t know, how prohibition was a totally kickass time for this country and it worked and how we should spend tax dollars on Nancy Reagan holograms for every classroom, you can just click minimize that fucker and the whole sidebar conversation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Llano Estacado said:

 


You know people bag on the reddit formatting a lot, but that little nested comment feature is really useful.

Hypothetically - If you’re reading about a local event on say, 5 HPD officers getting shot, and some guy has a 20 post sidebar about, I don’t know, how prohibition was a totally kickass time for this country and it worked and how we should spend tax dollars on Nancy Reagan holograms for every classroom, you can just click minimize that fucker and the whole sidebar conversation.

 

But just to be safe....scan it for boobs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, the said:

Oh and what's with the personal attacks? Are you six? 

"I'd neg you again! You're stupid!!" 

Grow up. LOL.

Dude, take a deep breath and let it go. It's the wrong thread and emotions are high. Pick your battles and battlefields, this ain't it. Give us a chance to get to know you before you commit neg-repicide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


mpu


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Recruiting ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Help ... For Sale ... Politics ... Board Discussion
×
×
  • Create New...