OK Adam, why DID he handcuff me then?
He handcuffed you around your back in an open air jeep, since he thought you the sort that if he handcuffed you in the front, you would lean up and over the seat to choke him with the cuffs. The Jeep had neither a security frame or roof, and wasn't meant to haul prisoners.
I don't think his assessment of you was far off :P
Yeah, that's why cops handcuff people behind their back instead of in front. That's standard procedure. To put them on in front, you might as well not put them on at all. Yup Adam, you've proven yourself a moron.
I'm so glad standard procedure is always followed to the letter. It makes me so happy in my every day life that everyone follows a strict code and never falters from it in the slightest.
Not all people who are arrested are put in handcuffs. Also, I don't remember him actually arresting you, but merely bringing you in for questioning. If a police officer was bringing me in for questioning I highly doubt I'd be put in handcuffs, unless I showed some form of aggression.
Also, Adam has demonstrated his intelligence more than adequately for every rational person to see he is not a moron.
*smiles*
Coming from you John, that's a compliment, thank you :)
If a police officer was bringing me in for questioning I highly doubt I'd be put in handcuffs, unless I showed some form of aggression.
You've obviously never been arrested. It doesn't matter questioning, arrest, they handcuff you. To think a cop wouldn't do that is a sign of stupidity.
John you really must have toasted more than a fair share of brain cells, the observation never was why you were handcuffed. It was why you were handcuffed BEHIND your back when in the 1940's there was no set standard procedure to do so, and that being just for civilian officers. I applaud you John, making another mountain out of a molehill.
Because that's what cops do when they arrest someone. That's standard procedure. I would have thought him almost as stupid as you if he did it any other way.
You are a truly worthless individual John, no redeemable qualities, contribute nothing to society, I really do pity you.
Actually, I'm inclined to agree with Mike.
Right off the bat, you won't be handcuffed unless you're placed under arrest or deemed dangerous; that would be a violation of your rights.
Secondly, if you are of sound mind and demonstrate to the police that you are cooperative, there will be times they will bring you to the station not in cuffs or cuffed in front, but they'll switch it or cuff you before their superiors taking you in where their superiors will see. They think it will lull the perp into a sense of security.
"You're helping me so I'll hekp you and now we're buddies. So, since we're buddies, tell me all about all the dirt you know and you'll get off easy." Without actually saying it, because that would be entrapment.
I've had it happen to me before.
What am I talking about? The MP IS as stupid as Adam. To think for a moment that a police officer wouldn't handcuff an arrest suspect behind their back is stupid.
You're (not your) the one making a mountain out of a molehill. You're (not your) questioning standard police procedure. I didn't think anything of it.
... but Adam got all his yours and you'res right that I see...
First, no I haven't ever been arrested. I avoid doing things that tend to get people arrested. Funny how that works.
Second, as to being brought in for questioning, unless you are under arrest it is voluntary as far as I know. If the conditions for me helping the authorities were that they were going to handcuff me behind my back I would tell them they should find a different witness. I'd be very polite about it and explain that I do not want my neighbors thinking I had been arrested or committed any serious crime, and as such being handcuffed when going with the authorities would convey the wrong message. If they would like my testimony they would have to forgo the handcuffing.
You see, I'm polite to people John, and as such they're nicer to me.
Also so far you've called both Adam and myself stupid. I find Adam to be very intelligent from what I have seen of him. Perfect grammar in off hours of posting to a fun forum isn't a very certain way of determining intelligence. As to myself I know I'm intelligent and would ask you to think carefully before you burn more bridges in this community by calling more people stupid.
Yeah Mike, I'm sorry. I get emotional easily. Why haven't you replied to your game lately?
Being brought in for questioning, you wouldn't be picked up by the police, they would probably have you bring yourself in. If the police come and get you, you're probably going to be handcuffed. If you're being brought in for questioning, you're probably a suspect. If you're not a suspect, you would bring yourself in.
The wise man understands he knows nothing.
Glantri makes an excellent point about SOP. The substandard referee assumes that all the NPC guards always and every time walk the complete perimeter of the Evil Villains secret jungle camp. The more skilled GM considers that perhaps the guards are just being misused so they're not terribly loyal so they smoke when they think they won't get caught. Or that the guards are green, and will start at any noise. Or that one guard has a blister in his toe that he keeps adjusting.
This is in large part the place where we use GE rolls (an excellent invention, btw). But it does help to have an understanding of human behavior, and to realize that there is no perfect strategy. Your uber-loyal, and mega-paranoid guards may never take a moment off to smoke...ever, but then they might fire their guns at a rat,a nd the flash of the rifle may blind them at night for a second. Every way you can reasonably set something up is going to have some sort of weakness to it.
And most humans will not perfectly follow SOP for a variety of reasons (SOP is Stooopid....hey, it happens...managers who make the rules don't have to do the rules. Or, SOP is hard,a nd its just easier to gloss over it....that happens a lot too. Or, I, ah, forgot.....very common. Or, what was that rule again?.....surprisingly common.)
SOP also changes over time for various reasons. The SOP as I was a kid was that the Solar System had nine planets, now we're taught that it has eight.
And last, but certainly not least, SOP is going to change from dimension to dimension. In my games, if you see someone acting odd, there is a distinct possibity that It Is A Clue.
I bet you all think I would be in favor of more nuclear weapons, right? Actually no. I'm in favor of nuclear disarmament. The current theory is MAD. Mutual Assured Destruction. Neither side will fire because they know that they will get blown off the map as well.
I never assume that anyone favors increased nuclear weapons, and the less so now that MAD has ended.
Yes, Mutually Assured Destruction made about as much sense as Balance of Powers (or the intervening Balance of Terror), but it sort of ended with the end of the Soviet Union. The residual Russian Federation does not really have the organization to run whatever weapons are still operational, and the Chinese don't yet have sufficient weapons to play the MAD game. Our present world problem is the War on Terrorism, which is an entirely different game.
Why do I keep insisting that I was forced to get involved? Because I WAS forced to get involved. Talking to the MP is more involved than I would have chosen to get, therefore, I was forced to get involved. I don't know why that's such a difficult concept for all of you to comprehend.
Why do I keep insisting that I was forced into the story? Because I WAS forced into the story. I was forced into the story because my character couldn't commit cold-blooded murder. Now he CAN commit cold-blooded murder. Is anyone else bothered by that, besides me?
This is really off-topic and annoying here, but since you've insisted on resurrecting this subject, let me agree that you were forced into the story the moment you appeared in Pearl Harbor--because now the story is "John appeared on the beach at Pearl Harbor, and this is what he did next." So yes, you were forced into the story, and you wrote the story from there by interacting with the world and its people.
If you consider talking to the MP "being involved" then there's really no objection. After all, you could say that seeing the beach was "being involved", and that you would not have wanted to be as involved as seeing the beach. Nothing we can do about that. You were at least that involved. You were breathing the air of Hawaii, leaving your footprints in the sand--you were certainly "involved".
You could have chosen to have been less involved, or more involved. You really can't not be involved in a world once you're there, if you set the bar for "involved" low enough.
As to Kyler's character being a cold-blooded killer, that really started with Why Spy, where C hired him without giving him alternatives. But I have hope for him--which is why I put him in Northgate, where he has the opportunity to use his power for good instead of ickiness.
On John's handcuffs, I would offer a two-part answer:
- He was arrested and cuffed because his responses to the officer suggested that he was a threat.
- The cuffs were behind is back so he could not use them, or his hands, as a weapon.
Did I miss something?
Cops handcuff people. Doesn't matter if the person was arrested for shoplifting a piece of chewing gum.
Actually, that's a relatively recent safety precaution. I've seen people arrested and not cuffed. It just doesn't happen anymore. I think at one time years ago I was arrested and not cuffed. They would cuff you if they thought you were dangerous, violent, or likely to run, but not usually otherwise. Now they do it pretty regularly--but in 1940? No, I think they arrested a lot of people and just put them in the back of the car. Cuffs were for troublemakers, and not every criminal falls into that category.
And that brings back to mind that article Stitches I recently mentioned on the Old Articles thread: if you're going to use a known setting, get the details right, because someone might know them.
--M. J. Young
I think at one time years ago I was arrested and not cuffed.
MJ got arrested? This I gotta hear about.
Getting details right is a vector, not a destination. Adding more details, in an interesting way, is a less important, but still valuable direction. And one of the effects of today's age is that even if you're right you're going to find people who will still criticize your facts. And one of the typical arguements if someone takes the side of an arguement that a certain partisan dislikes is 'you are ignorant because you do not know that such and such idea has been thoroughly rebutted'.
Its enough to tempt a fellow to say 'you can get hung for a sheep as well as for a goat', and just write what one pleases.
This is really off-topic and annoying here, but since you've insisted on resurrecting this subject, let me agree that you were forced into the story the moment you appeared in Pearl Harbor--because now the story is "John appeared on the beach at Pearl Harbor, and this is what he did next." So yes, you were forced into the story, and you wrote the story from there by interacting with the world and its people.
There's no such thing as "Off Topic" in a thread meant for random chat.
I feel like I lost a bet with that world. I always said that there was no way I could be induced to warn Pearl Harbor, because my belief was, to do so would ruin the United States. In a sense, I lost a bet. It just bothered me a lot. All of the evidence suggested the worst world you could have possibly picked. Whose fault is that? I don't know. It's 98% out of my head. I just have spouts where it comes back full force and I want to wring your neck for sending me there. Have you ever had nightmares about a game world? I did. Imagine a nightmare about being thrown out of a jeep.
Running that game for Glantri opened my eyes a lot. I see now that referees don't have nearly as much control over the worlds as I first thought. Not if they're being fair, that is. I wonder if God ever has moments where He wishes He could change or prevent something, but can't do so, because He is being fair. The zombies in my story weren't NOT going to kill Mike if they had the opportunity. I could say that they all turned around and ran away, but that wouldn't be fair. It makes you think.
"I want to wring your neck for sending me there"
Please...please, please, please, never say something like that again.
Brock, didn't you recently chide me for finding the one bad thing in a whole post of good?
I don't need to imagine having a nightmare about getting hit by a jeep, thank you.
One time I was walking down the sidewalk, and there was a little girl in the street about to get hit by a bus. I jumped out, grabbed her, and rolled, watched the bus go by, and asked, "Are you alright?" She didn't have a face.
In this dream, I was reading a book: One time there was this little girl who really liked those liquorice candies covered with granulated sugar. (Picture of a little girl at the bottom laying in a bed.) ::turn page:: This woman, her mother, was mother of two, and she thought the girl we're talking about, her eldest, was safe, playing at a friend's house, and that's when she ended up accidently hitting the 4/5 year old with her car. (Same picture at the bottom, now with a little bit of what looks to be sand, or granulated sugar falling on the little girl.) ::turn page:: The little girl had hit the ground hard, banging her head on the pavement, but was still conscious and cognizant. (Same picture, a little more sugar on it) ::turn page:: The mother put the little one in her car and drove straight home. (Same picture, a little more) ::turn page:: As the day passed, the little girl got less and less responsive to external stimulus. (Same picture, a little more) ::turn page:: At one point, the little girl tried to swallow her liquorice, and started choking and vomiting. (Same picture, a little more) ::turn page:: The mother was disturbed, but saw that shortly after the vomiting, the little girl had fallen asleep, so she put her in her bed. (Same picture, a little more) ::turn page:: When the mother came in to check on the little girl later, her lips were blue and she was stiff. (The little girl and her bed are now covered in a fine dust of granulated sugar) ::turn page:: *no words* (The picture at the bottom is of a bed overflowing with fine particulate matter, ie granulated sugar, sand, salt, etc.)
Or how about this one.
I was hanging out with a buddy of mine and an ex girlfriend. I looked at both of them and said, "You know, guys, if God wanted us to meet Him, He could take at any time." They looked at each other, then back to me, and responded, "Yeah," dismissively, as if to say 'so what'. Then we all went outside and piled into the front seat of a small car and started driving across a bridge. I was in the middle, my ex was driving, and my friend was to my right; outside the right window was off the bridge. On our left, a bulldozer pulled up next to us, and one came up behind us; to our front, another was coming head-on. I turned to the two seated on either side of me, and said, "Looks like He wants to meet us now," and they responded, "Yeah," dismissively, as if to say 'so what'. ... in most dreams I've experienced, as soon as the impact occurs, I awaken; not so with this one. I felt the initial front-end collision, and the secondary one as the other bulldozer hit the back of the car. As if in slow motion, I felt myself being bent backwards by the dashboard in front of me as the car compressed, and as the back made contact with my head, I felt myself continue bending backwards. I felt and heard my spine cracking and my ribs breaking free of it from the bottom all the up past my chest. Then darkness. A moment later, a thought skittered across the darkness: "That had to have been a dream, and since it had to have been a dream, that means it was a terrible nightmare. So, I'm going to wake up now." And I did.
It's a wonder I can't fall asleep at night.
There's another thing which happened in-game which won't get out of my head. Not nearly at the same magnitude of the other. In my Terminator world, I raised a psionic force field which terrified Sarah, she ran out into the woods think she was under attack from the future. She left me in the car and said "Now you be good while I'm gone, it shouldn't be long." (Or something) Even though I know as a player that it was MJ saying that, I keep thinking about poor Sarah Connor. How frightened she must have been to leave a 6 month old infant alone. I feel sorry for her, because I scared her so badly. From my character's POV, he MUST get back to that world, if for no other reason, to explain to Sarah who and what he is, and what that force shield was. Even though I know it was MJ, I MUST get back there to explain to Sarah what happened.
I know MJ says that the game is dead, but who knows what the future might hold? I'm learning, we might be more compatible in the future so that I can finish that world. People grow, they learn, change and adapt. That's what I'm doing.
That wasn't the one bad thing, it was the horrific thing I couldn't believe even you could say, John.
Speaking of Terminator, there's a scene in T2 where a mother is reigning in her two children. She says "You get back here before I wring both of your necks." She wouldn't really do that, no matter what the kids did. People say things like that all the time. It means nothing.
It means more these days.
There was a time where if you said something is the bomb, everyone knew what you meant. Now, people look at you like you're a terrorist.
There was a time when if you said, "I'm going to kill you," that would be understood as a saying meaning that you were upset with them. Now, it might land you in jail.
There was a time when saying "I'm going to kill myself" was an acceptable way of expressing your frustration and wasn't generally taken seriously. Now, in many circles it will land you in an infirmary.
Times change, and more people are less tolerant of such "harmless" statements these days than they were before; you never can tell when someone really is going to bring a gun to work and go out with a headline news story. Thus, the second Terminator movie is showing its age to a certain extent here.
That's why when you threaten someone, you have to tell the truth. You say "You're going to die!!!!!" It's not a threat, it's the truth. They ARE going to die. So is everyone else.
You just contradicted yourself ... again.
Besides that, words have/hold power, certainly when spoken. For one, they can't be taken back, however you would want them to.
The apology you publicly gave to Adam is a good example of the positive power of words. Well done.
But never say something that means nothing, because if it does not mean a thing, why did you say it in the first place?
You just contradicted yourself ... again.
Where?
(Doing Therapy)
She says "You get back here before I wring both of your necks." She wouldn't really do that, no matter what the kids did. People say things like that all the time. It means nothing.
VS
That's why when you threaten someone, you have to tell the truth. You say "You're going to die!!!!!" It's not a threat, it's the truth. They ARE going to die. So is everyone else.
Bolded for emphasis.
In one you says it means nothing, in the other you say it is the truth.
I'm waaaay behind the tech curve.
Jhiaxus reccomended Fallout to me, so I am getting one for my birthday...the first one. The Ladyfaire just bought a PS2 at the Oktoberfest miles long garage sale, and so we've been stocking up on cheap games. I've got the Spiderman 1 (based on the movie for five bucks), and The Incredibles: Rise of the Underminer for same moolah.
One problem I have is that Mr. C is likely to hog all the computer time, and his younger brother, the Mighty T, is likely to let him. But, with them playing Frozone and Mr. Incredible respectively, they've gotten further than I have with the game with Mr. C.
Its been house-cleaning day as the Sears repair guy is to come out for the annual checkup for the fridge. We're having problems with the dishwasher as well, but it might well be due to low pressure in the water supply. He's not been out yet, was ...well, he's just arrived. Kool.
I'm enjoying reading the Chronicles of Narnia to the boys, a chapter at night a day. Mr. C has already read The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, but I've gone thru Prince Caspian, and am now going through The Voyage of the Dawn Treader.
I was able to pickup Fallout, Fallout 2 and Fallout Tactics for 10 dollars at Gamestop as an all in one game, I picked up both copies they had, to hold to resell in later years. Fallout is a great game, and you can't really go wrong with it. A cheap ps2 is a good way for video games for the kids *coughcough*.
She says "You get back here before I wring both of your necks." She wouldn't really do that, no matter what the kids did. People say things like that all the time. It means nothing.
VS
That's why when you threaten someone, you have to tell the truth. You say "You're going to die!!!!!" It's not a threat, it's the truth. They ARE going to die. So is everyone else.
Bolded for emphasis.
In one you says it means nothing, in the other you say it is the truth.
Doesn't contradict it, if anything, it reinforces the statement. A mother telling her children that she is going to wring both of their necks. In a way, that's acceptable. Well, not really, but it's not likely to be taken seriously. Or it shouldn't be. Me telling MJ that I want to wring his neck. That too is, in a way, acceptable. I'm sure you insult your friends in a good-natured manner. MJ is thick skinned and knows me well enough to know I don't really mean I'm going to come to New Jersey and try to hurt him. (At least I REALLY hope so!!!) Besides, I'm allowed to want to do and to think about doing anything I like. It's not illegal unless I actually do it. It's a hollow threat. It's meaningless. It's a good-natured insult between friends.
Me saying that you're going to die means even less as a threat. You ARE going to die!!! So is Brock, so is Adam, so are all of the other 7 billion or so inhabitants of this planet. That's not even a threat. It means even less as a threat, because it's absolutely true.
(Doing Therapy)
Nikolaj--John was being a bit disingenuous (maybe that's the right word) with the second statement--
- Doctor, Doctor, will I die?
Yes, my child, and so will I.
Doctor, doctor, tell me when?
When you do, and not 'til then.
He was saying that if he says, "You're going to die," he's not actually threatening someone but making a statement that is bound to prove true eventually.
But John, we shall not all die. Some of us will meet the Lord in the air. I'm sure I don't know who or when, but I'm pretty confident that eventually that claim will be false for someone.
'you are ignorant because you do not know that such and such idea has been thoroughly rebutted'.
It seems to me that usually the reverse is at least as true--that is, whatever ideas they hold have been equally thoroughly refuted.
I frequently get comments from people who think that the New Testament is unreliable as a historic source. I tell them that it was popular to believe that in the nineteenth century, when people wanted to believe that God would never do anything like that and so they used that as the basis for the assertion that the documents must be unreliable and therefore must have been written centuries later than supposed. In the twentieth century, it has been clearly demonstrated that those documents existed in the first century. Thus it was "proved" that they were later and unreliable, and then it was "proved" that they were actually earlier and quite reliable.
I get the same thing about "weren't they changed over all this time," and I've got the answer for that, too.
--M. J. Young
Oh, I was going to mention a point on the subject of things you can't say anymore.
My youngest was on the elementary school playground. I think he was in maybe third grade. Several older kids pinned him to the ground and started beating him. The playground monitor got there in time to hear him say, "I'm going to kill you" before she got them off of him.
The State Police had to be called to talk to two people--my son and his mother, because he threatened someone's life. I am unaware of anything having been done to the several who were beating him senseless at the time.
I see that New Jersey is passing an anti-bullying law. I'm not at all certain how that works.
--M. J. Young
He was saying that if he says, "You're going to die," he's not actually threatening someone but making a statement that is bound to prove true eventually.
Yeah, I frequently tell people "I'll be home in two hours" when I'm fifteen minutes away from home. It's true. Unless I leave again, I WILL be at home in two hours.
But John, we shall not all die. Some of us will meet the Lord in the air. I'm sure I don't know who or when, but I'm pretty confident that eventually that claim will be false for someone.
I knew you were going to mention The Rapture. Ever read Left Behind? Good book series.
(Doing Therapy)
Sorry. I read Salem Kirban's and Hal Lindsey's fiction in that area decades ago, and I don't know that I have the stomach for another. "Left Behind" is so obviously pre-trip pre-millennialism--well, I just find that to be a subject on which too many people are a lot more certain than I think anyone ought to be.
When it says "One will be taken, the other will be left," it immediately explains that by saying, "where the bodies are, there the vultures will gather". The one who is "taken" in that passage is dead; the one who is left is still alive, right here on earth. Oh, and the calamity in which that happens is almost certainly the fall of Jerusalem in 70AD when Titus knocked down the walls.
That's not to say that there isn't a moment when believers meet the Lord in the air--Paul specifically mentions that--only that this extremely popular verse is about something else entirely.
And if that mistake is so frequently made, how many others are there?
I shouldn't snipe. After all, I've made some embarrassing errors in my own past, and have been forced to correct quite a few. The one thing I've learned is that we have certainty on a very few points, and it is foolish to claim certainty in areas that were not made explicit.
--M. J. Young
Amen to that.
"Left Behind" is so obviously pre-trip pre-millennialism--well, I just find that to be a subject on which too many people are a lot more certain than I think anyone ought to be.
Well hey, if it gets the message across.