On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 09:05:48 -0500, Goomba >
wrote:

>sf wrote:
>> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 17:24:13 GMT, "l, not -l" > wrote:
>>
>>> On 3-Nov-2009, sf > wrote:
>>>
>>>> I don't know what an LEO is
>>> I believe it is a frequently used abreviation for "law enforcement officer";
>>> frequently heard on TV cop shows in the phrase "local LEOs".
>>
>> Thanks. I don't watch those shows, so I didn't know.
>>
>What shows? I learned it online on message boards.

What's a message board? Or did you mean you learned it here?


--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 19:35:28 -0500, Stevie wrote:

> Bob Muncie wrote:
>> gloria.p wrote:
>>> Omelet wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> But yeah, someone should have helped him but by calling a friend or
>>>> relative. Calling the cops would have landed the guy in jail with a
>>>> public intoxication conviction. Those are expensive fines...
>>>
>>>
>>> Better than having him stagger out of the store, sucking down more
>>> beer from the case he had just bought, get into a car and kill someone.
>>>
>>> Drunkenness to that stage is inexcusable. He should have been locked
>>> up overnight and fined, not patted on the hand and taken care of.
>>>
>>>
>>> gloria p
>>
>> Gloria -
>>
>> I agree he should pay. I think the next morning may well have been enough.
>>
>> To have a fiscal penalty is a government response (which I despise). If
>> he was in such a state to have drank that much, chances are he's a nice
>> person, but at the end of his rope. I don't think a dollar amount in
>> penalty would serve a purpose.
>>
>> Bob
>
> There you go with your "nice" thing again. Where do you get that shit?
>
> Steve

i think it's a warped version of projection.

maybe it wasn't andy, it was bob!

your pal,
blake

Bob Muncie wrote:
> Stevie wrote:
>> Bob Muncie wrote:
>>> gloria.p wrote:
>>>> Omelet wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But yeah, someone should have helped him but by calling a friend or
>>>>> relative. Calling the cops would have landed the guy in jail with a
>>>>> public intoxication conviction. Those are expensive fines...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Better than having him stagger out of the store, sucking down more
>>>> beer from the case he had just bought, get into a car and kill someone.
>>>>
>>>> Drunkenness to that stage is inexcusable. He should have been locked
>>>> up overnight and fined, not patted on the hand and taken care of.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> gloria p
>>>
>>> Gloria -
>>>
>>> I agree he should pay. I think the next morning may well have been
>>> enough.
>>>
>>> To have a fiscal penalty is a government response (which I despise). If
>>> he was in such a state to have drank that much, chances are he's a nice
>>> person, but at the end of his rope. I don't think a dollar amount in
>>> penalty would serve a purpose.
>>>
>>> Bob
>>
>> There you go with your "nice" thing again. Where do you get that shit?
>>
>> Steve
>
> I get "it" from being human. Do "you" get it?

You overdo it and sound like a person lacking certain "skills".

I get mine in the sack - most of the time.

Steve

Bob Muncie wrote:
> Stevie wrote:
>> Bob Muncie wrote:
>>> Omelet wrote:
>>>> In article
>>>> >,
>>>> Chemo the Clown > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Here...with music too!
>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFKsbeN01N8
>>>>
>>>> That dude seriously needed to sleep it off!
>>>
>>> I was hoping towards the end that someone was going to make sure he made
>>> it home okay, or at least called the LEOs so they would make sure he
>>> didn't fall out in the street and get ran over.
>>>
>>> Sad to say, no one appeared to care enough. Not even the the operators
>>> at that store.
>>>
>>> To top it off, some jerk felt the need to make a video of this sad
>>> moment for that person's life...
>>>
>>> I don't know who I feel sorry more for. The obviously too drunk guy, the
>>> pathetic human excuses that didn't try and help him, or the jerk that
>>> made the video.
>>
>> That jerk was, actually were the stores security cameras. Your first
>> clue should have been the time stamp on them.
>>
>> Steve
>>
>
> I'm sorry... I refuse to right-off all humans. That of course, excludes
> you.

For explaining a painfully obvious thing to you, Bob?

I know you aren't the smartest banana in the bunch so here's some help -
"write off", not "right-off".

Steve

In article >,
sf > wrote:

> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 00:57:37 -0500, Bob Muncie >
> wrote:
>
> >I also feel bad that no one tried to make sure he stayed safe. I would
> >have either tried to make sure he got home safe, or would have called
> >the LEOs to make sure he stayed safe without my help. I certainly would
> >not have been able to cope well with reading he was run over the next
> >day, and I could have prevented it.
>
> I don't know what an LEO is, but he certainly needed to dry out
> somewhere. It was too long a video for me to watch. There's only so
> much public drunkenness I can stand. When I got back to it, he was
> headed out the door without any liquor. Was he denied at the check
> stand or did he just forget why he was there?

LEO: Law Enforcement Officer

He kept dropping the beer and finally forgot to pick it up again...
--
Peace! Om

"Human nature seems to be to control other people until they put their foot down."
--Steve Rothstein

Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>

Subscribe:

In article >,
Bob Muncie > wrote:

> Stevie wrote:
> > Bob Muncie wrote:
> >> gloria.p wrote:
> >>> Omelet wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> But yeah, someone should have helped him but by calling a friend or
> >>>> relative. Calling the cops would have landed the guy in jail with a
> >>>> public intoxication conviction. Those are expensive fines...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Better than having him stagger out of the store, sucking down more
> >>> beer from the case he had just bought, get into a car and kill someone.
> >>>
> >>> Drunkenness to that stage is inexcusable. He should have been locked
> >>> up overnight and fined, not patted on the hand and taken care of.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> gloria p
> >>
> >> Gloria -
> >>
> >> I agree he should pay. I think the next morning may well have been
> >> enough.
> >>
> >> To have a fiscal penalty is a government response (which I despise). If
> >> he was in such a state to have drank that much, chances are he's a nice
> >> person, but at the end of his rope. I don't think a dollar amount in
> >> penalty would serve a purpose.
> >>
> >> Bob
> >
> > There you go with your "nice" thing again. Where do you get that shit?
> >
> > Steve
>
> I get "it" from being human. Do "you" get it?

A little compassion never hurt anyone...
--
Peace! Om

"Human nature seems to be to control other people until they put their foot down."
--Steve Rothstein

Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>

Subscribe:

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 09:05:48 -0500, Goomba >
> wrote:
>
>>sf wrote:
>>> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 17:24:13 GMT, "l, not -l" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3-Nov-2009, sf > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I don't know what an LEO is
>>>> I believe it is a frequently used abreviation for "law enforcement
>>>> officer";
>>>> frequently heard on TV cop shows in the phrase "local LEOs".
>>>
>>> Thanks. I don't watch those shows, so I didn't know.
>>>
>>What shows? I learned it online on message boards.
>
> What's a message board? Or did you mean you learned it here?
>
>

Um... a message board is rather like an online bulletin board. It's a
rather old time online thing.

Jill <--- nodding at Usenet which is also a dinosaur

In article >,
"jmcquown" > wrote:

> "sf" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 09:05:48 -0500, Goomba >
> > wrote:
> >
> >>sf wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 17:24:13 GMT, "l, not -l" > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 3-Nov-2009, sf > wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> I don't know what an LEO is
> >>>> I believe it is a frequently used abreviation for "law enforcement
> >>>> officer";
> >>>> frequently heard on TV cop shows in the phrase "local LEOs".
> >>>
> >>> Thanks. I don't watch those shows, so I didn't know.
> >>>
> >>What shows? I learned it online on message boards.
> >
> > What's a message board? Or did you mean you learned it here?
> >
> >
>
> Um... a message board is rather like an online bulletin board. It's a
> rather old time online thing.
>
> Jill <--- nodding at Usenet which is also a dinosaur

But a dinosaur we all love... :-)
I personally prefer usenet to web based forums. Easier to use by far!
I do belong to some e-mail forums too and those are ok.
--
Peace! Om

"Human nature seems to be to control other people until they put their foot down."
--Steve Rothstein

Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>

Subscribe:

"Bob Muncie" > wrote in message
...
> Omelet wrote:
>> In article >,
>> Bob Muncie > wrote:
>>
>>> Omelet wrote:
>>>> In article
>>>> >,
>>>> Chemo the Clown > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Here...with music too!
>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFKsbeN01N8
>>>> That dude seriously needed to sleep it off!
>>> I was hoping towards the end that someone was going to make sure he made
>>> it home okay, or at least called the LEOs so they would make sure he
>>> didn't fall out in the street and get ran over.
>>>
>>> Sad to say, no one appeared to care enough. Not even the the operators
>>> at that store.
>>>
>>> To top it off, some jerk felt the need to make a video of this sad
>>> moment for that person's life...
>>>
>>> I don't know who I feel sorry more for. The obviously too drunk guy, the
>>> pathetic human excuses that didn't try and help him, or the jerk that
>>> made the video.
>>
>> Well, the video looked like an automatic store recording. You do know
>> that if you visit a convenience store, you are filmed?
>>
>> But yeah, someone should have helped him but by calling a friend or
>> relative. Calling the cops would have landed the guy in jail with a
>> public intoxication conviction. Those are expensive fines...
>
> Even calling the LEOs would be better than to let him wonder around and
> possibly get hit by a car, or injured by others trying to rob him. The
> drunk tank is better than being abused.
>
> OTOH, I'd like to think I would have given him a ride home.
>
> Everyone can use a break from time to time.
>
> Bob



I understand your concern, but there's no indication the owner of the store
didn't call the cops. For all we know there were a bunch of his drunken
friends (egads!) outside in the parking lot waiting for him.

Still, it's sad that this had to make it online, as though it was an episode
of 'America's Funniest Home Videos'. Ever watch that show? Those people
are just begging to be candidates for the next Darwin Awards. Yet everyone
thinks it's hilarious. Even the parents of kids doing really stupid and
dangerous stuff are holding a video camera.

Jill

jmcquown wrote:

> I understand your concern, but there's no indication the owner of the
> store didn't call the cops. For all we know there were a bunch of
> his drunken friends (egads!) outside in the parking lot waiting for
> him.

I assume they called the cops. At least once, I think that guy
would have had a concussion if one guy hadn't broken his fall.
Other people tried to keep him from falling too.

Personally, I saw it as a public service. Maybe some kid will
see it and think being really drunk isn't as cool as you might
think.

> Still, it's sad that this had to make it online, as though it was an
> episode of 'America's Funniest Home Videos'. Ever watch that show?
> Those people are just begging to be candidates for the next Darwin
> Awards. Yet everyone thinks it's hilarious. Even the parents of
> kids doing really stupid and dangerous stuff are holding a video
> camera.

That's why my favorite videos are the pets/animals. Sometimes
the kids. Because they are guileless. Videos of here, let me
climb the ladder with a can of paint, oops, I fell! are just lame.
Yeah, we just stained the house, oddly it didn't occur to me to
video tape it. I call them America's Fakest Videos.

nancy

jmcquown wrote:

> I understand your concern, but there's no indication the owner of the
> store didn't call the cops. For all we know there were a bunch of
> his drunken friends (egads!) outside in the parking lot waiting for
> him.

I assume they called the cops. At least once, I think that guy
would have had a concussion if one guy hadn't broken his fall.
Other people tried to keep him from falling too.

Personally, I saw it as a public service. Maybe some kid will
see it and think being really drunk isn't as cool as you might
think.

> Still, it's sad that this had to make it online, as though it was an
> episode of 'America's Funniest Home Videos'. Ever watch that show?
> Those people are just begging to be candidates for the next Darwin
> Awards. Yet everyone thinks it's hilarious. Even the parents of
> kids doing really stupid and dangerous stuff are holding a video
> camera.

That's why my favorite videos are the pets/animals. Sometimes
the kids. Because they are guileless. Videos of here, let me
climb the ladder with a can of paint, oops, I fell! are just lame.
Yeah, we just stained the house, oddly it didn't occur to me to
video tape it. I call them America's Fakest Videos.

nancy

jmcquown wrote:

> I understand your concern, but there's no indication the owner of the
> store didn't call the cops. For all we know there were a bunch of
> his drunken friends (egads!) outside in the parking lot waiting for
> him.

I assume they called the cops. At least once, I think that guy
would have had a concussion if one guy hadn't broken his fall.
Other people tried to keep him from falling too.

Personally, I saw it as a public service. Maybe some kid will
see it and think being really drunk isn't as cool as you might
think.

> Still, it's sad that this had to make it online, as though it was an
> episode of 'America's Funniest Home Videos'. Ever watch that show?
> Those people are just begging to be candidates for the next Darwin
> Awards. Yet everyone thinks it's hilarious. Even the parents of
> kids doing really stupid and dangerous stuff are holding a video
> camera.

That's why my favorite videos are the pets/animals. Sometimes
the kids. Because they are guileless. Videos of here, let me
climb the ladder with a can of paint, oops, I fell! are just lame.
Yeah, we just stained the house, oddly it didn't occur to me to
video tape it. I call them America's Fakest Videos.

nancy

On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 06:25:48 -0500, "jmcquown" >
wrote:

>"sf" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 09:05:48 -0500, Goomba >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>sf wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 17:24:13 GMT, "l, not -l" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 3-Nov-2009, sf > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't know what an LEO is
>>>>> I believe it is a frequently used abreviation for "law enforcement
>>>>> officer";
>>>>> frequently heard on TV cop shows in the phrase "local LEOs".
>>>>
>>>> Thanks. I don't watch those shows, so I didn't know.
>>>>
>>>What shows? I learned it online on message boards.
>>
>> What's a message board? Or did you mean you learned it here?
>>
>>
>
>Um... a message board is rather like an online bulletin board. It's a
>rather old time online thing.
>
>Jill <--- nodding at Usenet which is also a dinosaur

So they're still around? Huh. I didn't know.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 05:48:47 -0600, Omelet >
wrote:

>I personally prefer usenet to web based forums. Easier to use by far!
>I do belong to some e-mail forums too and those are ok.

You like your mailbox being flooded by that stuff? Ugh. I hate it.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 06:56:54 -0500, "jmcquown" >
wrote:

>Those people
>are just begging to be candidates for the next Darwin Awards. Yet everyone
>thinks it's hilarious. Even the parents of kids doing really stupid and
>dangerous stuff are holding a video camera.

The apple doesn't fall far from the tree!

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

You're hiccupping again!

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 18:59:51 -0600, Omelet wrote:

> In article >,
> sf > wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 00:57:37 -0500, Bob Muncie >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>I also feel bad that no one tried to make sure he stayed safe. I would
>>>have either tried to make sure he got home safe, or would have called
>>>the LEOs to make sure he stayed safe without my help. I certainly would
>>>not have been able to cope well with reading he was run over the next
>>>day, and I could have prevented it.
>>
>> I don't know what an LEO is, but he certainly needed to dry out
>> somewhere. It was too long a video for me to watch. There's only so
>> much public drunkenness I can stand. When I got back to it, he was
>> headed out the door without any liquor. Was he denied at the check
>> stand or did he just forget why he was there?
>
> LEO: Law Enforcement Officer
>
> He kept dropping the beer and finally forgot to pick it up again...

actually, i was impressed by the length of time it took him to drop the
beer. he went ass over teacups a couple times and managed to hold on to
it.

the mark of a pro.

your pal,
blake

On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 07:45:28 -0500, Nancy Young wrote:

> jmcquown wrote:
>
>> I understand your concern, but there's no indication the owner of the
>> store didn't call the cops. For all we know there were a bunch of
>> his drunken friends (egads!) outside in the parking lot waiting for
>> him.
>
> I assume they called the cops. At least once, I think that guy
> would have had a concussion if one guy hadn't broken his fall.
> Other people tried to keep him from falling too.
>
> Personally, I saw it as a public service. Maybe some kid will
> see it and think being really drunk isn't as cool as you might
> think.
>

i seem to recall reading about the use of a video of a person drinking
being shown to that person as an aversion technique. the odds are very
great that you look stupider than you thought you were at the time, even if
you weren't completely trashed.

(i used to proofread research summaries for a living. this would be
something cooked up by the VA. some of those were a ****ing trip.)

your pal,
blake

On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 07:19:52 -0800, sf wrote:

> You're hiccupping again!

too much alcohol.

your pal,
blake

In article >,
sf > wrote:

> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 05:48:47 -0600, Omelet >
> wrote:
>
> >I personally prefer usenet to web based forums. Easier to use by far!
> >I do belong to some e-mail forums too and those are ok.
>
> You like your mailbox being flooded by that stuff? Ugh. I hate it.

<lol> Nah. The few lists I am on are low volume for the most part. :-)
Two of them, I co-moderate and that can be more of a pain. All those
"moderate" notices... I don't mind tho' or I'd not do it.
--
Peace! Om

"Human nature seems to be to control other people until they put their foot down."
--Steve Rothstein

Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>

Subscribe:

In article >,
blake murphy > wrote:

> > He kept dropping the beer and finally forgot to pick it up again...
>
> actually, i was impressed by the length of time it took him to drop the
> beer. he went ass over teacups a couple times and managed to hold on to
> it.
>
> the mark of a pro.
>
> your pal,
> blake

<lol> Good point!
--
Peace! Om

"Human nature seems to be to control other people until they put their foot down."
--Steve Rothstein

Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>

Subscribe:

In article >,
blake murphy > wrote:


> i seem to recall reading about the use of a video of a person drinking
> being shown to that person as an aversion technique. the odds are very
> great that you look stupider than you thought you were at the time, even if
> you weren't completely trashed.

I was reading something by a doctor who worked in a chemical dependency
unit. When video cameras, especially the portable ones, got popular,
she claimed that they got a lot of business from them. People thought
they were pretty funny when they were drunk at parties. After they saw
the videos, they realized that they *were* funny, but not the way they
thought.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

blake murphy wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 07:45:28 -0500, Nancy Young wrote:

>> Personally, I saw it as a public service. Maybe some kid will
>> see it and think being really drunk isn't as cool as you might
>> think.

> i seem to recall reading about the use of a video of a person drinking
> being shown to that person as an aversion technique. the odds are
> very great that you look stupider than you thought you were at the
> time, even if you weren't completely trashed.

It's not a bad idea for someone who's not already in too deep.

> (i used to proofread research summaries for a living. this would be
> something cooked up by the VA. some of those were a ****ing trip.)

That had to be interesting.

nancy

On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 12:01:41 -0500, blake murphy
> wrote:

>On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 18:59:51 -0600, Omelet wrote:

>> He kept dropping the beer and finally forgot to pick it up again...
>
>actually, i was impressed by the length of time it took him to drop the
>beer. he went ass over teacups a couple times and managed to hold on to
>it.

ROFL. That's what cracked me up. When Andy was on the floor with his
legs wiggling around like an octopus he wouldn't let go of the beer.
At least now Andy has been exposed.

Lou

On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 14:16:06 -0500, Nancy Young wrote:

> blake murphy wrote:
>> On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 07:45:28 -0500, Nancy Young wrote:
>
>>> Personally, I saw it as a public service. Maybe some kid will
>>> see it and think being really drunk isn't as cool as you might
>>> think.
>
>> i seem to recall reading about the use of a video of a person drinking
>> being shown to that person as an aversion technique. the odds are
>> very great that you look stupider than you thought you were at the
>> time, even if you weren't completely trashed.
>
> It's not a bad idea for someone who's not already in too deep.
>
>> (i used to proofread research summaries for a living. this would be
>> something cooked up by the VA. some of those were a ****ing trip.)
>
> That had to be interesting.
>
> nancy

i remember one where they rigged up schizophrenics with a device that they
could use to deliver a mild shock to themselves when they started to hear
voices. most showed improvement; one guy said that he heard the voices
just as frequently but they stopped talking about his sexual thoughts and
began criticizing his table manners.

your pal,
blake

In article >,
blake murphy > wrote:

> On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 14:16:06 -0500, Nancy Young wrote:
>
> > blake murphy wrote:
> >> On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 07:45:28 -0500, Nancy Young wrote:
> >
> >>> Personally, I saw it as a public service. Maybe some kid will
> >>> see it and think being really drunk isn't as cool as you might
> >>> think.
> >
> >> i seem to recall reading about the use of a video of a person drinking
> >> being shown to that person as an aversion technique. the odds are
> >> very great that you look stupider than you thought you were at the
> >> time, even if you weren't completely trashed.
> >
> > It's not a bad idea for someone who's not already in too deep.
> >
> >> (i used to proofread research summaries for a living. this would be
> >> something cooked up by the VA. some of those were a ****ing trip.)
> >
> > That had to be interesting.
> >
> > nancy
>
> i remember one where they rigged up schizophrenics with a device that they
> could use to deliver a mild shock to themselves when they started to hear
> voices. most showed improvement; one guy said that he heard the voices
> just as frequently but they stopped talking about his sexual thoughts and
> began criticizing his table manners.
>
> your pal,
> blake

<snork>

I saw a neat t-shirt at the post office the other day. It said "I do
whatever the voices in my wife's head tell me to do".

Saw another cute one at the grocery store this morning. Chunky middle
aged dude. T-shirt said "I've beaten Anorexia".
--
Peace! Om

"Human nature seems to be to control other people until they put their foot down."
--Steve Rothstein

Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>

Subscribe:

blake murphy wrote:

> On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 14:16:06 -0500, Nancy Young wrote:
>
>> blake murphy wrote:
>>> On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 07:45:28 -0500, Nancy Young wrote:
>>
>>>> Personally, I saw it as a public service. Maybe some kid will
>>>> see it and think being really drunk isn't as cool as you might
>>>> think.
>>
>>> i seem to recall reading about the use of a video of a person
>>> drinking being shown to that person as an aversion technique. the
>>> odds are very great that you look stupider than you thought you
>>> were at the time, even if you weren't completely trashed.
>>
>> It's not a bad idea for someone who's not already in too deep.
>>
>>> (i used to proofread research summaries for a living. this would be
>>> something cooked up by the VA. some of those were a ****ing trip.)
>>
>> That had to be interesting.
>>
>> nancy
>
> i remember one where they rigged up schizophrenics with a device that
> they could use to deliver a mild shock to themselves when they
> started to hear voices. most showed improvement; one guy said that
> he heard the voices just as frequently but they stopped talking about
> his sexual thoughts and began criticizing his table manners.
>


Kinda like _My Mother, The Car_...or even _Mr. Ed_...!!!


--
Best
Greg

"Bob Muncie" > wrote in message
...
> Stevie wrote:
>> Bob Muncie wrote:
>>> Omelet wrote:
>>>> In article
>>>> >,
>>>> Chemo the Clown > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Here...with music too!
>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFKsbeN01N8
>>>>
>>>> That dude seriously needed to sleep it off!
>>>
>>> I was hoping towards the end that someone was going to make sure he made
>>> it home okay, or at least called the LEOs so they would make sure he
>>> didn't fall out in the street and get ran over.
>>>
>>> Sad to say, no one appeared to care enough. Not even the the operators
>>> at that store.
>>>
>>> To top it off, some jerk felt the need to make a video of this sad
>>> moment for that person's life...
>>>
>>> I don't know who I feel sorry more for. The obviously too drunk guy, the
>>> pathetic human excuses that didn't try and help him, or the jerk that
>>> made the video.
>>
>> That jerk was, actually were the stores security cameras. Your first
>> clue should have been the time stamp on them.
>>
>> Steve
>>
>
> I'm sorry... I refuse to right-off all humans. That of course, excludes
> you.

Oh-my-goshness. What a NOT-NICE thing to say.




Get a ****ing life, loser.