Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

WickedLasers Unveils "Lightsaber" Powerful Enough to Set People on Fire

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Re: WickedLasers Unveils "Lightsaber" Powerful Enough to Set People on Fire

    Originally posted by indygeezer View Post
    Kill yes, but homeowners have been sued when and intruder slipped and fell (well that's the legend anyway).
    Urban myth.

    The last thing anyone needs to worry about when a crime is being committed is civil lawsuits.

    The po-po? that's a different matter entirely. (like when you shoot an intruder and you're a felon on parole. You won't get nabbed for defending your home, but you sure as heck will head back to the slam for possessing a firearm.
    “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

    “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: WickedLasers Unveils "Lightsaber" Powerful Enough to Set People on Fire

      Originally posted by Hicks View Post
      Are you volunteering to be a test subject?
      Sure! Who do you want me to shoot with it?
      Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

      ------

      "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

      -John Wooden

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: WickedLasers Unveils "Lightsaber" Powerful Enough to Set People on Fire

        Originally posted by heywoode View Post
        I don't think they've figured out a way to just make a laser shoot out to an open end and stop at any distance, let alone three feet or so like a lightsaber from the movies!

        Given that, if this thing just shoots a dangerous beam out to the distance of it's power, even Jedi's would know better than to let any Joe Dirt carry one around...hehe
        Im pretty sure that a light saber is pretty much impossible by our laws of physics. Also it wouldn't utilize laser technology.
        You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: WickedLasers Unveils "Lightsaber" Powerful Enough to Set People on Fire

          You're like a constant downer huh?
          Originally posted by Natston;n3510291
          I want the people to know that they still have 2 out of the 3 T.J.s working for them, and that ain't bad...

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: WickedLasers Unveils "Lightsaber" Powerful Enough to Set People on Fire

            Originally posted by Los Angeles View Post
            Urban myth.

            The last thing anyone needs to worry about when a crime is being committed is civil lawsuits.

            The po-po? that's a different matter entirely. (like when you shoot an intruder and you're a felon on parole. You won't get nabbed for defending your home, but you sure as heck will head back to the slam for possessing a firearm.
            Does that not depend on the state and the state laws, and I did state that was according to the legend
            Last edited by indygeezer; 06-13-2010, 08:17 PM.
            Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: WickedLasers Unveils "Lightsaber" Powerful Enough to Set People on Fire

              Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
              Im pretty sure that a light saber is pretty much impossible by our laws of physics. Also it wouldn't utilize laser technology.
              Combination laser and force shield at a fixed focal point.
              Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: WickedLasers Unveils "Lightsaber" Powerful Enough to Set People on Fire

                Originally posted by SoupIsGood View Post
                Yeah right. Disregarding the fact that you'd probably permanently blind yourself trying to use it in such a way (as accidentally aiming it at any even semi-reflective surface would do that), there's no ****ing way you're within your rights to BLIND and MAIM a home invader. You probably wouldn't kill him, just make it to where he had insane burn wounds up and down his body and could no longer see for the rest of his life. You would get your *** sued off.
                I agree that this is a dumb and dangerous thing and can only lead down a dangerous route, but in this case I don't legally see a difference between using this to defend your home against a home invader or using a gun to defend yourself against a home invader. Sure if the guy's running away and use it on him then you'll be in trouble just like you would be with a gun, but if the guy is not removing himself from your premises, it would seem to me that if you feel threatened it's been legally established you are within your rights to use a gun to disarm the invader, so I'd imagine you'd still be ok using this.

                All that being said, I hope I never get within 1,000 feet of some jackass carrying this around.

                EDIT: I should read threads.

                Also, I do have to agree with Bball. These seem like some pretty fantastic/out there claims. Can set flesh on fire instantly? Instantly blinds someone? I mean that is a pretty incredible thing for $200 if it is true. And I'm surprised the military isn't all over this...I'll be interested to see the "product use" videos when they start rolling out.
                Last edited by Trader Joe; 06-14-2010, 09:31 AM.


                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: WickedLasers Unveils "Lightsaber" Powerful Enough to Set People on Fire

                  Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                  I agree that this is a dumb and dangerous thing and can only lead down a dangerous route, but in this case I don't legally see a difference between using this to defend your home against a home invader or using a gun to defend yourself against a home invader. Sure if the guy's running away and use it on him then you'll be in trouble just like you would be with a gun, but if the guy is not removing himself from your premises, it would seem to me that if you feel threatened it's been legally established you are within your rights to use a gun to disarm the invader, so I'd imagine you'd still be ok using this.

                  All that being said, I hope I never get within 1,000 feet of some jackass carrying this around.

                  EDIT: I should read threads.

                  Also, I do have to agree with Bball. These seem like some pretty fantastic/out there claims. Can set flesh on fire instantly? Instantly blinds someone? I mean that is a pretty incredible thing for $200 if it is true. And I'm surprised the military isn't all over this...I'll be interested to see the "product use" videos when they start rolling out.
                  I researched a little, and in the end I couldn't really figure out whether I was right or wrong on this. This same discussion has come up before in different forums—whether buying ahead of time an excessively mutilative weapon for the purpose of self-defense could get you in trouble with the law, after you used it.

                  Self-defense has to use reasonable force, and part of that is that you must be attacking in good faith. Now, mostly the good faith question hinges upon whether or not the defender authentically believed his life or person to be in danger, but it also means that the attack cannot be malicious, or that the defender cannot seem to somehow enjoy it. I would argue that choosing ahead of time a weapon like a laser this powerful should constitute 'malice aforethought,' as the intent of the would-be defender seems to go beyond merely defending himself, extending into wishing to maim egregiously. [Of course, if you're attacked in your lab and a laser is all you have available in the moment, I don't think anyone would care.)

                  I mean, this like keeping a vial of acid locked away in your bedroom for purposes of self-defense. Is it going to deter your attacker? Probably. Is it also going to disfigure/mutilate him in unnecessary and malicious ways? Yeah. I had a case from the appeals court of DC wherein a man used lye to defend himself (and mutilated the **** out of his attacker's face), but I could not find out enough about the case pre-appeal to say for sure whether or not this would set legal precedent. (The man who attacked with the lye had claimed acting in self-defense, but w/o further evidence I can't figure whether he truly was, or if his claim was simply legal posturing. Someday when I'm in DC I'll probably try to sift through their non-electronic court records in order to find out what went down, as this question has become it's own general curiosity for me. . . .)

                  But, me? I would just avoid the legal gray area and buy a gun. Using a laser specifically to blind someone is considered a war crime, and I wouldn't really wanna take the risk and see how that principle plays out in civilian self-defense.

                  Mostly I think portable lasers this powerful should be severely restricted—and eventually they probably will be—as it is far too easy for some jackass to do something dumb and really **** up a person's life.
                  Last edited by SoupIsGood; 06-14-2010, 01:02 PM.
                  You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: WickedLasers Unveils "Lightsaber" Powerful Enough to Set People on Fire

                    I DO NOT COME TO PD TO HEAR MORE ABOUT LEGAL STUFF.

                    HERE IS A PUPPY:

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: WickedLasers Unveils "Lightsaber" Powerful Enough to Set People on Fire

                      I would argue that choosing ahead of time a weapon like a laser this powerful should constitute 'malice aforethought,' as the intent of the would-be defender seems to go beyond merely defending himself, extending into wishing to maim egregiously.
                      You'd be wasting the court's time too...

                      You'd be arguing for criminal rights which is going to be an uphill battler when this criminal threatened the life of the person you're going after with these charges.

                      Your 'malice aforethought' principle could be applied to ANY defensive weapon if you want to go down that road.

                      It's pretty clear this laser, if it could do what it claims, would be a weapon that could be used for self-defense. Any lawyer on the other side is going to point out your client could be dead if the defendant had used a gun instead of the laser. So he will spin that as a positive for your client while pointing out it's your client's actions that got him to this point.

                      Your client would be the one that put the events into motion that ended up with him suffering whatever consequences the laser left him with. All he had to do was abide by the law and leave the defendant alone and none of this happens. That is the principle you really need to concern yourself with here. No amount of legal semantics is going to overcome that.

                      I understand your concerns but your energies would be best served in attacking the manufacturer of the device and lobbying government for regulations/restrictions on their sale to consumers.

                      Using their use as legitimate weapons of self-defense won't help your case either (no matter how many disfigured or blinded criminals you bring to court or to your press conference). You need to use cases where the devices were not taken seriously and caused severe harm to the user or innocent bystanders.
                      Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                      ------

                      "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                      -John Wooden

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: WickedLasers Unveils "Lightsaber" Powerful Enough to Set People on Fire

                        BTW... I want one too!
                        Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                        ------

                        "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                        -John Wooden

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: WickedLasers Unveils "Lightsaber" Powerful Enough to Set People on Fire

                          Just buy one of those tasers LEO's use

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: WickedLasers Unveils "Lightsaber" Powerful Enough to Set People on Fire

                            Originally posted by Bball View Post
                            You'd be wasting the court's time too...

                            You'd be arguing for criminal rights which is going to be an uphill battler when this criminal threatened the life of the person you're going after with these charges.

                            Your 'malice aforethought' principle could be applied to ANY defensive weapon if you want to go down that road.

                            It's pretty clear this laser, if it could do what it claims, would be a weapon that could be used for self-defense. Any lawyer on the other side is going to point out your client could be dead if the defendant had used a gun instead of the laser. So he will spin that as a positive for your client while pointing out it's your client's actions that got him to this point.

                            Your client would be the one that put the events into motion that ended up with him suffering whatever consequences the laser left him with. All he had to do was abide by the law and leave the defendant alone and none of this happens. That is the principle you really need to concern yourself with here. No amount of legal semantics is going to overcome that.

                            I understand your concerns but your energies would be best served in attacking the manufacturer of the device and lobbying government for regulations/restrictions on their sale to consumers.

                            Using their use as legitimate weapons of self-defense won't help your case either (no matter how many disfigured or blinded criminals you bring to court or to your press conference). You need to use cases where the devices were not taken seriously and caused severe harm to the user or innocent bystanders.
                            No good lawyer will use the argument I bolded because it's not true. As powerful as this laser is, a gun's still your best bet for self defense. The laser has a short battery that you would have to always keep charged, and it would be much harder to aim and hit your target with a laser when you're in distress. [Also, I think class 4 lasers have safety requirements that would make one hard to access in the heat of the moment.]

                            How could it be applied to any defensive weapon? A club has no obvious mutilative properties. Knives, gun—both of those weapons have lethal advantages beyond their ability to mutilate. Tasers, pepper spray, baseball bat. . . ? This principle clearly can not be applied to any potential weapon, because what separates lasers (and vials of acid) from these weapons is that their force is almost entirely accounted for by their ability to mutilate the opponent. The UN singled out lasers for a reason.

                            And I think it's incorrect to frame this as a question of 'criminal rights.' The question has more to do with whether the defender used reasonable force, which is a legit legal question. And if he didn't use reasonable force, however despicable the crimes the invader was planning, then the defender should be charged with a crime, too.

                            I am allowed to defend myself only insofar as it takes to deter my attacker. Sometimes, yes, this can allow maiming: your kitchen examples, the lab-laser example, or say if I'm being raped and I must bite into my attackers face gouge out his eyeball, or whatever. But to deliberately melt half his face with acid (or mutilate him with a laser, etc.) when I could have shot him in the chest with a gun ? It's a worthwhile question to ask whether that was truly reasonable force.
                            Last edited by SoupIsGood; 06-14-2010, 04:12 PM.
                            You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: WickedLasers Unveils "Lightsaber" Powerful Enough to Set People on Fire

                              Any force should, and probably is, "reasonable" when someone has entered your home illegally and for the purpose of committing a crime.

                              The purpose of using the laser wouldn't be to multilate or miam anyone. It would be to protect yourself. If the laser is right there for use, and you manage to use it, who is to say you violated someone else's right? No rationale person can sit in the comfort of their computer chair, or desk chair in a court of law, and try to hypothesize about their actions in a situation like that. Instincts take over. You aren't going to debate whether or not which weapon is going to be ruled legal, or illegal. You're going to act.
                              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: WickedLasers Unveils "Lightsaber" Powerful Enough to Set People on Fire

                                Unless you are protecting your family who is sleeping or something, the best bet for self defense are your own two feet and a telephone: get the heck out of there and call the cops.

                                Shooting at a person in the dark is a sure-fire way to ruin a surprise birthday party or an unannounced visit from your drunk but well-meaning cousin.

                                And don't include a handgun as a good home defense weapon unless you have the training and experience to hit your target cleanly. Instead, use a shotgun and before you fire, give it one good solid rack: kla-KLACK! Bye bye home invader. Still coming toward you? BOOM.
                                “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

                                “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X