#2 2008-05-25 16:08:53

I’m allergic to stupid people.  Exposure to them causes my blood pressure to go up; I have to take medication to keep my pressure down because it’s impossible to avoid contact with them.  Can I sue to have stupid people removed from public places?

Offline

 

#3 2008-05-25 16:17:50

fnord wrote:

I’m allergic to stupid people.  Exposure to them causes my blood pressure to go up; I have to take medication to keep my pressure down because it’s impossible to avoid contact with them.  Can I sue to have stupid people removed from public places?

If you find an attorney to take your case, let us know.  We'll have a class-action suit before you know it.

Offline

 

#4 2008-05-25 16:22:43

This isn't the first time I've heard of this dubious infirmity. More women report it than men, and I don't think it's experienced enough to fit ADA criteria (meaning that, if everything that was ever wrong with somebody was due special consideration and environmental adaption, then none of us would be able to live our lives). A larger group of the same sort of people have been complaining that power lines give them cancer. Various diagnoses apply.

Since we're practically blanketed in electromagnetic radiation, whenever I hear of an "electronic allergy" I want to follow these people around to make sure they never use televisions, cell phones, microwaves, or refrigerator magnets. Or refrigerators, for that matter. Even if these people moved in with the Amish, they'd probably still be within range of the sun (what next, porphyria?). Dorks.

Offline

 

#5 2008-05-25 16:49:07

They could go here for a respite.  The downside is that you have to live in West Virginia.

Offline

 

#6 2008-05-25 18:13:11

pALEPHx wrote:

This isn't the first time I've heard of this dubious infirmity. More women report it than men, and I don't think it's experienced enough to fit ADA criteria (meaning that, if everything that was ever wrong with somebody was due special consideration and environmental adaption, then none of us would be able to live our lives). A larger group of the same sort of people have been complaining that power lines give them cancer. Various diagnoses apply.

Since we're practically blanketed in electromagnetic radiation, whenever I hear of an "electronic allergy" I want to follow these people around to make sure they never use televisions, cell phones, microwaves, or refrigerator magnets. Or refrigerators, for that matter. Even if these people moved in with the Amish, they'd probably still be within range of the sun (what next, porphyria?). Dorks.

I'm afraid I have to disagree.  For something to be dubious there must be some remote chance of it being true.

Offline

 

#7 2008-05-25 23:18:56

http://www.marriedtothesea.com/012708/chest-pains.gif

Offline

 

#8 2008-05-26 03:05:07

fnord wrote:

I’m allergic to stupid people.  Exposure to them causes my blood pressure to go up; I have to take medication to keep my pressure down because it’s impossible to avoid contact with them.  Can I sue to have stupid people removed from public places?

Couldn't stupidity be regarded as a disability? In that case, wouldn't the ADA come into play?

Offline

 

#9 2008-05-26 03:54:10

Nothing to see here.

Last edited by fnord (2008-05-26 03:56:18)

Offline

 

#10 2008-05-26 03:55:40

Taint wrote:

fnord wrote:

I’m allergic to stupid people.  Exposure to them causes my blood pressure to go up; I have to take medication to keep my pressure down because it’s impossible to avoid contact with them.  Can I sue to have stupid people removed from public places?

Couldn't stupidity be regarded as a disability? In that case, wouldn't the ADA come into play?

I can demonstrate that I’ve suffered actual damage because of their presence, namely that I have to take medication to prevent death or a stroke that would leave me seriously disabled.  Because medication has side effects, this isn’t an adequate solution to the problems I experience when exposed to stupid people.  Speaking for the many others like me who suffer harmful effects from contact with stupid people, we believe excluding stupid people from public places is the only equitable solution.  I’m proposing that public spaces be legally enforced stupidity-free zones, similar to smoke-free zones.

Last edited by fnord (2008-05-26 04:08:37)

Offline

 

#11 2008-05-26 04:36:33

fnord wrote:

I’m proposing that public spaces be legally enforced stupidity-free zones, similar to smoke-free zones.

That idea has real promise but how would you factor for those insufferable assholes with intellect?

Offline

 

#12 2008-05-26 04:47:13

tojo2000 wrote:

I'm afraid I have to disagree.  For something to be dubious there must be some remote chance of it being true.

I'd pay hard money to get one of these people alone in a room with a remote-operated wifi card in it, go double-blind on their ass and see how long their preposterous claims hold up.

Offline

 

#13 2008-05-26 05:00:16

jesusluvspegging wrote:

tojo2000 wrote:

I'm afraid I have to disagree.  For something to be dubious there must be some remote chance of it being true.

I'd pay hard money to get one of these people alone in a room with a remote-operated wifi card in it, go double-blind on their ass and see how long their preposterous claims hold up.

Oh, I'll bet it wouldn't even take that.  Take a laptop with netstumbler over to their house.  I'll bet no less than three of their neighbors have wifi that is detectable from inside their bedroom.

Offline

 

#14 2008-05-26 16:54:01

choad wrote:

fnord wrote:

I’m proposing that public spaces be legally enforced stupidity-free zones, similar to smoke-free zones.

That idea has real promise but how would you factor for those insufferable assholes with intellect?

Intellectual Assholyness in public does present a problem.  Is it a variety of stupidity, or is it a separate issue?  I suspect there’s an area of overlap between the two, and establishing an exact boundary would be difficult.  No doubt this is an area where lawyers for the stupid people and lawyers representing those of us allergic to them would have to work out an unsatisfactory compromise.

Offline

 

#15 2008-05-26 17:08:00

fnord wrote:

choad wrote:

fnord wrote:

I’m proposing that public spaces be legally enforced stupidity-free zones, similar to smoke-free zones.

That idea has real promise but how would you factor for those insufferable assholes with intellect?

Intellectual Assholyness in public does present a problem.  Is it a variety of stupidity, or is it a separate issue?  I suspect there’s an area of overlap between the two, and establishing an exact boundary would be difficult.  No doubt this is an area where lawyers for the stupid people and lawyers representing those of us allergic to them would have to work out an unsatisfactory compromise.

You would, if successful, effectively remove yourself from interacting with entire sectors of the economy, unless you wanted to pay much more for basic necessities in order to support the employment of non-stupid people in jobs typically held by those with behavioral, mental, and sociall limitations collectively classified as  "stoopidity" in your idiot-free zones.

Offline

 

#16 2008-05-26 17:30:17

You would, if successful, effectively remove yourself from interacting with entire sectors of the economy

The pizza delivery guy et al. could wear sacks over their heads.

Offline

 

#17 2008-05-26 17:53:05

George Orr wrote:

You would, if successful, effectively remove yourself from interacting with entire sectors of the economy

The pizza delivery guy et al. could wear sacks over their heads.

While driving, too?  That would be AWESOME!   We could also make them use vocoders that distorted their voices into reasonable fascimiles of someone with at least a reputation for not being stupid -- you could specify whether you wanted to hear Noam Chomsky, Carl Sagan, William Buckley, Janet Reno, Oprah Winfrey, or whoever ask for your money and give you change when you ordered your meal.  If this all went down, I'd be reduced to mail-order deliveries of canned and freeze-dried goods, augmented by nightime raids on other people's gardens. Or maybe I'd  to get that mail-order "bride" I've been window-shopping for (love those pre-op Thai trannies) and have her/him deliver wholesome meals through the sliding tray at the bottom of my office door...

Offline

 

#18 2008-05-27 04:26:22

tits_matilda wrote:

fnord wrote:

choad wrote:

That idea has real promise but how would you factor for those insufferable assholes with intellect?

Intellectual Assholyness in public does present a problem.  Is it a variety of stupidity, or is it a separate issue?  I suspect there’s an area of overlap between the two, and establishing an exact boundary would be difficult.  No doubt this is an area where lawyers for the stupid people and lawyers representing those of us allergic to them would have to work out an unsatisfactory compromise.

You would, if successful, effectively remove yourself from interacting with entire sectors of the economy, unless you wanted to pay much more for basic necessities in order to support the employment of non-stupid people in jobs typically held by those with behavioral, mental, and sociall limitations collectively classified as  "stoopidity" in your idiot-free zones.

Intellectual brilliance isn’t necessary for the shoe salesman or pizza delivery person.  All that is required is competence, an IQ high enough to understand and meet the customer’s needs, and last the patience and tact to deal with any issues or questions that may arise.  There’re plenty of jobs for stupid people that don’t require public contact.  Jobs such as sludge technician at a sewer plant, cabbage shredding machine operator at a sauerkraut factory, or shrimp head popper at a seafood restaurant.  There’s no reason to frustrate the stupid by requiring them to hold down jobs that require them to behave intelligently.  Special shopping zones could be set up for the stupid that are staffed by stupid people, so they could enjoy being among their own kind.  As stupidity occurs in all races, this could not be construed as racial segregation.  It’s unlikely the stupid would be awarded special class status as I suspect a majority of judges share my allergy to stupid people.

Offline

 

#19 2008-05-27 04:58:52

never ceases to amaze me the vast number of shitforbrains who hold advanced degrees. these are functional tards who in a perfect world would manage the fryolator at wendy's if the highway dept isn't hiring.

sorry, this cast has got to fucking go.

Offline

 

#20 2008-05-27 14:25:21

tojo2000 wrote:

For something to be dubious there must be some remote chance of it being true.

Maybe we're splitting hairs between "dubious" and "fatuous," but it's not an illness, disorder, or syndrome currently recognized by the medical community, that I know of. If someone is out there treating it, then I'd be the first one to want to know how. As I was trying to imply, it doesn't pass the "smell test" for a consistent etiology. While I might accept that some people can be physically disturbed by certain frequencies out of the range of human hearing, for example, an "allergy to wifi [signals]" sounds more like an associative, psychological condition. Tell you what, round me up about three dozen of these people and we'll do a double-blind at the nearest Starbucks.

Offline

 

#21 2008-05-27 14:57:19

pALEPHx wrote:

tojo2000 wrote:

For something to be dubious there must be some remote chance of it being true.

Maybe we're splitting hairs between "dubious" and "fatuous," but it's not an illness, disorder, or syndrome currently recognized by the medical community, that I know of. If someone is out there treating it, then I'd be the first one to want to know how. As I was trying to imply, it doesn't pass the "smell test" for a consistent etiology. While I might accept that some people can be physically disturbed by certain frequencies out of the range of human hearing, for example, an "allergy to wifi [signals]" sounds more like an associative, psychological condition. Tell you what, round me up about three dozen of these people and we'll do a double-blind at the nearest Starbucks.

I agree. But...it's always easier to dismiss than to understand. I get migraines from red wine. I have one now. If I were the only person on earth to ever get a migraine from red wine, would the migraine be less real? Let's spend the god damned money, hire some poiindexters and make a scientific determination based on double-blind tests and physiology. Anything else is based in prejudice. To dismiss, out-of-hand, the possibility of effects on the brain from energetic fields is dubious, fatuous, and lacking in caution.

Offline

 

#22 2008-05-27 15:52:06

WilberCuntLicker wrote:

pALEPHx wrote:

tojo2000 wrote:

For something to be dubious there must be some remote chance of it being true.

Maybe we're splitting hairs between "dubious" and "fatuous," but it's not an illness, disorder, or syndrome currently recognized by the medical community, that I know of. If someone is out there treating it, then I'd be the first one to want to know how. As I was trying to imply, it doesn't pass the "smell test" for a consistent etiology. While I might accept that some people can be physically disturbed by certain frequencies out of the range of human hearing, for example, an "allergy to wifi [signals]" sounds more like an associative, psychological condition. Tell you what, round me up about three dozen of these people and we'll do a double-blind at the nearest Starbucks.

I agree. But...it's always easier to dismiss than to understand. I get migraines from red wine. I have one now. If I were the only person on earth to ever get a migraine from red wine, would the migraine be less real? Let's spend the god damned money, hire some poiindexters and make a scientific determination based on double-blind tests and physiology. Anything else is based in prejudice. To dismiss, out-of-hand, the possibility of effects on the brain from energetic fields is dubious, fatuous, and lacking in caution.

Of course there's a chance that an electromagnetic field or radio frequency could have some effect on the brain, but rejecting these people's claims out of hand has nothing to do with prejudice, it's about not believing every moron that walks in off the street claiming to have an allergy to radio waves.  This guy is his own double-blind test.  He thinks his chest starts hurting because of the Wi-Fi, but he is exposed to the same or similar frequencies all the time, so the fact that he starts to feel chest pain when he knows he's being exposed to Wi-Fi proves that it's not the Wi-Fi that's causing it.

Offline

 

#23 2008-05-27 16:51:46

tojo2000 wrote:

This guy is his own double-blind test.  He thinks his chest starts hurting because of the Wi-Fi, but he is exposed to the same or similar frequencies all the time, so the fact that he starts to feel chest pain when he knows he's being exposed to Wi-Fi proves that it's not the Wi-Fi that's causing it.

I don't think your "proof" can be considered any more than an incremental confirmation. Fields overlap. Some "hotspots" may turn out to be "slow-cookers." (I use and enjoy wi-fi...this is not a Luddite rant.) I still remember the problems I had convincing my publisher to buy me an expensive ant-glare screen for my (pre-lcd) monitor. My eye-strain and headaches were branded neuroticism, and even I was confused, since often I was fine. Did a week without a headache "prove" that I was wrong? All I had to go on was a vaguely perceived pattern, and my intuition. Neurotics seem ridiculous, but they may be the prophets that live among us. They may be the Weltschmerz lottery winners, the eaters of sin, snivelization's conscience sine qua non. Prejudice is judgement before the facts, and not all the facts are evident until appropriate testing has been done.

Offline

 

#24 2008-05-27 17:51:24

WilberCuntLicker wrote:

tojo2000 wrote:

This guy is his own double-blind test.  He thinks his chest starts hurting because of the Wi-Fi, but he is exposed to the same or similar frequencies all the time, so the fact that he starts to feel chest pain when he knows he's being exposed to Wi-Fi proves that it's not the Wi-Fi that's causing it.

I don't think your "proof" can be considered any more than an incremental confirmation. Fields overlap. Some "hotspots" may turn out to be "slow-cookers." (I use and enjoy wi-fi...this is not a Luddite rant.) I still remember the problems I had convincing my publisher to buy me an expensive ant-glare screen for my (pre-lcd) monitor. My eye-strain and headaches were branded neuroticism, and even I was confused, since often I was fine. Did a week without a headache "prove" that I was wrong? All I had to go on was a vaguely perceived pattern, and my intuition. Neurotics seem ridiculous, but they may be the prophets that live among us. They may be the Weltschmerz lottery winners, the eaters of sin, snivelization's conscience sine qua non. Prejudice is judgement before the facts, and not all the facts are evident until appropriate testing has been done.

This is not comparable, though.  This guy is being bombarded with radio waves all day long, every day.  Hell, even his microwave is putting off that frequency, and it's in the same frequency range as analog TV signals, which are broadcast at much higher power.  Prejudgment assumes some relevant facts not in evidence, not judgment before omniscience.

Offline

 

#25 2008-05-27 18:39:30

tojo2000 wrote:

This is not comparable, though.  This guy is being bombarded with radio waves all day long, every day.  Hell, even his microwave is putting off that frequency, and it's in the same frequency range as analog TV signals, which are broadcast at much higher power.  Prejudgment assumes some relevant facts not in evidence, not judgment before omniscience.

Look, it's easily solved. Everyone with this problem should be sent, at government expence, someplace where they will not have to deal with this problem. I would gladly pay extra taxes to see it done.

Offline

 

#26 2008-05-27 18:55:19

Fuckall, why waste the money on tards when a cure for red wine migraines would relieve so much more human suffering. No, I'm not joking.

Offline

 

#27 2008-05-27 19:17:14

WilberCuntLicker wrote:

To dismiss, out-of-hand, the possibility of effects on the brain from energetic fields is dubious, fatuous, and lacking in caution.

That's me, Mr. Throws Caution to the Wind. I do appreciate all your backhanded compliments, Willy.

I'm not dismissing the complaint, only suggesting--as would anyone trying to produce a differential from such scant anecdotal evidence and little hard science--that there is a far greater likelihood something else is the culprit, here. Granted, our species didn't evolve in tandem or proximity to various EM fields, the overall level of background radiation in daily life should be enough to trigger these "allergies" (so, he can never get an MRI or fly in an airplane too?), not just wifi.

Why look to make life more difficult for everyone else if, let's say, you have a true allergy to nuts, milk, or whatnot? We're already compelled to put ingredients on everything for the safety of a minority, so what would a compromise consist of in this case? A sign--not unlike the coffee cups from McD's--that tells you you're in the presence of electromagnetic fields/radiation? What kind of douche lives in a major city and really needs to be TOLD?

Offline

 

#28 2008-05-27 19:35:56

Bah...you can all go fuck yourselves. I couldn't be bothered to actually read the article so I'll just pretend I won this argument and go back to sleep. Choad's right about the tards and headaches. If only we could make migraine meds from ground-up skull-filler. I'll be back when I can see straignt again...don't be nice to anyone while I'm gone.

Offline

 

#29 2008-05-27 19:47:30

WilberCuntLicker wrote:

Bah...you can all go fuck yourselves.

Hey Wilber

It can be much more fun attempting to do a deity thing when you have something locked and loaded [one in the chamber] to help you determine.

Offline

 

#30 2008-05-27 21:16:36

MSG Tripps wrote:

WilberCuntLicker wrote:

Bah...you can all go fuck yourselves.

Hey Wilber

It can be much more fun attempting to do a deity thing when you have something locked and loaded [one in the chamber] to help you determine.

Usually I agree, and I've modified a few magazines in my time (in more ways than one). Today, however, my deity comes from god.
http://img209.imagevenue.com/loc89/th_36976_fool_123_89lo.jpg

Offline

 

#31 2008-05-27 21:22:00

I may have said before; Loki is my chosen deity.

Offline

 

#32 2008-05-28 02:56:09

S'more grist for the mill:

Wi-Fi "Allergies" Prompt Calls for Ban

There have been a number of studies on sensitivity to electromagnetic fields (EMF). Of course, the research has been controversial, but agencies including the National Institutes of Health and the National Cancer Institute have acknowledged the potential hazards of long-term exposure to strong EMF, and have done studies on the association of cancer risks with living near high-voltage utility lines.

It's even been posited that the EMF from a hybrid engine, such as in a Prius, could have health risks.

A group in Santa Fe, New Mexico has requested a ban on wi-fi in public buildings because they say they’re allergic --- or sensitive --- to wireless Internet signals.

While many may pooh-pooh this sort of thing, the research by the NIH and NCI indicate that there is evidence to support such sensitivity.

Arthur Firstenberg said he is highly sensitive to certain types of electric fields, including wi-fi and cellular phones. "I get chest pain and it doesn't go away right away."

Firstenberg and dozens of other EMF-sensitive people in Santa Fe claim that wi-fi in public places is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The city attorney is now looking into it and hopes to have a recommendation by the end of the month. (source)

(accent mine)

This is beginning to take on the characteristics of of mob psychology or hysteria. Ordinarily, I'd say these people diagnosed themselves via the internet, but it wouldn't make sense that they could use the technology and not be similarly affected.

Offline

 

#33 2008-05-28 03:00:50

pALEPHx wrote:

Ordinarily, I'd say these people diagnosed themselves via the internet, but it wouldn't make sense that they could use the technology and not be similarly affected.

Could it be they're not using wi-fi? As far as I know it's still just an option.

Offline

 

#34 2008-05-28 03:07:48

Is there any consideration given to the damage that could occur from the energy beams from all the satellites in orbit pointed 'down'?

Offline

 

#35 2008-05-28 03:49:10

WilberCuntLicker wrote:

Could it be they're not using wi-fi? As far as I know it's still just an option.

Glad to see your migraine has settled. Can I interest you in an insouciant cabernet?

Yes, wifi remains an option (rather than a standard feature on most basic home networks), but to sit at a computer, one is subject to at least two EM field sources (the computer and the monitor). Now, I wonder, do bluetooth mice/keyboards also count? My point is, I suppose, that human body is not--to my knowledge, and I'm hedging here because there are many different types--distinguish between radiation X and radiation Y...at least, not within the narrow portion of the spectrum used for wireless communications.

I'm also trying to consider the lack of consensus on the "symptoms" of this malaise. Chest pain? Headaches? Nausea? What else? An allergy would provoke a measurable histamine response, so why isn't someone focussing on that?

PS, red wines also give me headaches. I'm told it's the tannins. Fortunately, we've had couple millennia of anecdotal evidence to affirm that there is an association. Electricity and radio have had what, barely a century in most places? Of course, that just means I avoid cheap red wine, not tell liquor stores to stop selling it.

Offline

 

#36 2008-05-28 04:34:59

pALEPHx wrote:

There have been a number of studies on sensitivity to electromagnetic fields (EMF). Of course, the research has been controversial, but agencies including the National Institutes of Health and the National Cancer Institute have acknowledged the potential hazards of long-term exposure to strong EMF, and have done studies on the association of cancer risks with living near high-voltage utility lines.

...

While many may pooh-pooh this sort of thing, the research by the NIH and NCI indicate that there is evidence to support such sensitivity.

Arthur Firstenberg said he is highly sensitive to certain types of electric fields, including wi-fi and cellular phones. "I get chest pain and it doesn't go away right away."

Firstenberg and dozens of other EMF-sensitive people in Santa Fe claim that wi-fi in public places is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The city attorney is now looking into it and hopes to have a recommendation by the end of the month.

How exactly does a study showing that it's possible (mind you, it's still never been proven, but there are some studies that show it to be a possibility) that people might possibly have a higher risk of cancer when continually exposed to high energy EMF, there's a huge leap from that to some guy being able to feel it in his chest when EMF is near.  The studies that have been done as far as I know were to investigate whether living next to power plants/power lines and continual cell phone use can cause an increased risk of cancer.

Anything's possible, though, I guess. 

This does bring up a few interesting questions:   Wi-Fi, cell phones, and power lines cover a huge portion of the planet.  If there really is this statistically insignificant number of people who absolutely cannot be around EMF, then why wouldn't they be required to live in an anti-EMF bubble, as opposed to the rest of the world being required to accommodate them?  We don't sterilize entire towns for people with immune deficiencies.  Also, considering the extreme rarity of the disorder, why would there be a large cluster of them in Santa Fe?

Offline

 

#37 2008-05-28 14:19:55

tojo2000 wrote:

This does bring up a few interesting questions: Wi-Fi, cell phones, and power lines cover a huge portion of the planet. If there really is this statistically insignificant number of people who absolutely cannot be around EMF, then why wouldn't they be required to live in an anti-EMF bubble, as opposed to the rest of the world being required to accommodate them? We don't sterilize entire towns for people with immune deficiencies. Also, considering the extreme rarity of the disorder, why would there be a large cluster of them in Santa Fe?

Well, obviously no one is going to require them to shield themselves or migrate to the middle of nowhere, but I can't make sense of the Santa Fe cluster, either. We might as well accept that we're discussing this all w/o a net.

The language of the articles, so far, has been kinda misleading, totally non-empirical. Granted, I wouldn't expect a "scholarly" publication to be much more enlightening (it's usually the same conjecture, dressed up with fancier words and some tables for that peer-reviewed eye candy). If the NIH and NCI don't put much stock in the phenomenon, then that's probably good enough for me. The question really is, can someone exhibit reactions like these to electromagnetic radiation? Since we know this to be entirely true for other points on the spectrum (microwaves, gamma rays, etc.), the suspicion regarding other wavelengths is "Why not?" instead of "Studies have already been done, and no correlation has been found."

Remember when Mom said "Don't sit so close to the TV. You'll hurt your eyes"? Doesn't happen, but after a couple decades of CRT use, eyestrain and headaches are reported, devices made, and ergonomics studied for optimal distance. Then there's the vagueness of the symptoms, again. Thoracic pain, for example, could have so many causes, it would be difficult to associate it with weak fields. Maybe this will be one of those fun new dilemmas on the next season of "House." Or some other show.

http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/funny-pictures-mythbuster-cat.jpg

Offline

 

#38 2008-05-28 14:55:15

George Orr wrote:

You would, if successful, effectively remove yourself from interacting with entire sectors of the economy

The pizza delivery guy et al. could wear sacks over their heads.

Or you could just shove a ball-gag in their mouth.  Problem solved (mostly).

Offline

 

#39 2008-05-28 15:49:32

pALEPHx wrote:

Maybe this will be one of those fun new dilemmas on the next season of "House."

The international Jewish conspiracy has already been revealed.

Offline

 

#40 2008-05-28 15:54:48

George Orr wrote:

fnord wrote:

I’m allergic to stupid people.  Exposure to them causes my blood pressure to go up; I have to take medication to keep my pressure down because it’s impossible to avoid contact with them.  Can I sue to have stupid people removed from public places?

If you find an attorney to take your case, let us know.  We'll have a class-action suit before you know it.

Some jackass in my town tried to sue the school district for having wireless technology, and yes, he found a douchebag of an attorney to take his case, along with a bunch of other fruitcakes who joined in as plaintiffs.  The only evidence he had was some article written by a women who was NOT a scientist who claimed that wireless technology caused brain injuries.

After some pretrial wrangling, the judge allowed the plaintiffs to drop their case, and in exchange for agreeing to never file again they did not have to pay the school district's legal fees. I personally thought the judge was too soft...let the nuts foot a legal bill and see how dedicated they are to their cause.

Offline

 

#41 2008-05-28 16:11:29

square wrote:

The international Jewish conspiracy has already been revealed.

"I don't care if you and your partner saved a school bus full of doe-eyed urchins on their way to Sunday bible camp." [snigger, chortle]

Offline

 

#42 2008-06-04 04:04:33

choad wrote:

Fuckall, why waste the money on tards when a cure for red wine migraines would relieve so much more human suffering. No, I'm not joking.

Red wine may be much more potent than was thought in extending human lifespan, researchers say in a new report that is likely to give impetus to the rapidly growing search for longevity drugs.



Fuckers misread my request. I want a cure for the cure, not to live miserable longer.

Offline

 

#43 2008-06-04 04:40:27

choad wrote:

Fuckers misread my request. I want a cure for the cure, not to live miserable longer.

I've found "Friday I'm in Love" to be an effective cure for The Cure.

Offline

 

Board footer

cruelery.com