|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Oct 10, 2006 10:40 am
I don't see it on the last page at all, and I'm not going to call a retroactive DQ...
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 10, 2006 11:26 am
It was the last post on page 2. Bucky says quite frankly that he launches a big distraction attack and then "teleports" behind Fox to stab him in the back.
It's your call. Just thought I'd try to be an upstanding citizen and mention it to the proper authorities. XD
Since he's been pullin' ninja moves so far it could be he just meant Body Flicker without knowing how it really works so he called it teleporting, but that would just be a guess on my part. Either way its speed exceeding your "blur" rule though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 10, 2006 1:14 pm
Jans Viper Viper dodges of course, suddenly suspicious. His opponent had started his hand with deception, but his moves were clearly telegraphed now... What the ********, he -dodges-? When has that ever been a viable defense?
Or well, when has that ever been a viable defense, when you aren't describing anything? ******** like:
"John throws a punch."
"Jack dodges."
"How does Jack dodge?"
"He just dodges."
"= |"
I am disappointed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 10, 2006 1:27 pm
>_> He threw a double Haymaker. A single haymaker is a wild swing with next to no accuracy and all power, a double is even more so. Somehow I doubt Vahn meant for it to hit. Because he didn't specify a direction I just assumed they were double hooks and "dodged" which he in turn assumed I meant Viper puts distance between himself and Vahn.
=/ So that was my reasoning, I don't really know why I cared enough about your disappointment to write this out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 10, 2006 1:39 pm
So you couldn't have replaced:
"Viper dodged."
With:
"Viper backstepped."
question
Yeah... I'll issue a warning, Chaos. Thanks for the heads up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 10, 2006 2:14 pm
Jans Viper =/ So that was my reasoning, I don't really know why I cared enough about your disappointment to write this out. You don't know why, but you still did, which means I win.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 10, 2006 4:33 pm
@Jello: =P ...it's hardly Deity's only method, nor his first choice of defense. He was only clarifying what was or wasn't an option. Thankity, thankity...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 1:46 am
Everyone, I may not be able to post tomorrow, I don't know if I'll be sane enough to do so when I wake up. If anyone has ANY sense here they'll tell everyone what almost happened. And what didn't.
The Military Commissions Act was passed on September 29th, 2006. Through both the Senate and the House.
10 days later George W. Bush had still not signed the bill, and because of the upcoming election Congress is no longer in session.
The Military Commissions Act should have been a law, but isn't.
What scares me to the core is that I heard nothing about this in the news.
If you have any sense, you will tell everyone what almost happened.
We came one signature away from it.
I don't know what the hell is going on any more.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 2:43 am
Rawr, rawr, rawr, b***h, moan, rawr, rawr.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 5:17 am
You're kidding right? The military commissions act should have never been passed. SEC. 7. HABEAS CORPUS MATTERS. `(e)(1) No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination. `(2) Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 1005(e) of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (10 U.S.C. 801 note), no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any other action against the United States or its agents relating to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of confinement of an alien who is or was detained by the United States and has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.'. (b) Effective Date- The amendment made by subsection (a) shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply to all cases, without exception, pending on or after the date of the enactment of this Act which relate to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of detention of an alien detained by the United States since September 11, 2001. That's a straight up violation of the constitution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 9:47 am
I'm going to assume alien is a very loose term for person.
Otherwise I find that Habeas Corpus very amusing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 9:57 am
You could get a better idea of the situation by watching this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 10:57 am
I'm very bad at legaleese... but doesn't that just say, word for word, that they want to RETROACTIVELY resolve any government agent, military personnel, or federal agent of any legal responsibility for:
1. Wrongful imprisonment.
2. Inhumane treatment.
3. Conviction without a trial.
4. Etc.
of anyone that they don't consider a U.S. citizen?
Yeah. ******** THAT.
And Viper... while I'll give extensions for some things, I don't feel that a law not being passed really counts the same as "I got this UGE test I'm studying for".
However, you get one extra day. Because I don't feel like being a jackass.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 11:03 am
You would be exactly right Jello. But hey, at least you aren't forced to house troops in your home.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 11:29 am
Now that I have a somewhat better understanding of the situation:
That's the biggest bullshit I've ever heard.
I fail to comprehend how this could even remotely be considered for law.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
