Speaking of tool thefts...

I'm watching one of these run of the mill, JIT home makeover shows last night and the contractor has tools stolen from the work site on 2 consecutive nights. So he gets the bright idea for him and another to stake out the place at night. Ok so far but the passanger is drinking Michelob light while the vehicle is being driven (clearly shown and mentioned by the pass), then they stop and park, and the driver pops one open. Then the driver pulls out a shotgun to bolster his courage, then they show them drinking more and more and tossing the cans into the bed of the truck until late at night the thieves return. He never shoots the shotgun, and the probably half drunk pass loses his courage as the thief enters the trees so nothing is lost this night, but nobody was caught either.

My point is how stupid can a TV show be to advocate drinking while driving and drinking in public in that manner showing off a loaded shotgun? Freaking dumb! I'm no prohibitionist but booze and guns do not mix - period!

Grandpa John

Reply to
John DeBoo
Loading thread data ...

One of my favorite shows, because the boss is a dead ringer for my son-in-law (they even went to Clemson at about the same time--these guys are from Charleston--s-i-l is from upstate), but I had the same reaction.

It was bad enough that they were sitting there at 0200 for the reason they were (and he has the nerve to say, "some call it vigilanteism, but down here we call it common sense"), it was doubly bad to be popping the tops (with a can count shown in the bed of the truck), but when the GC jacked the action of the shotgun, I said, "this is stupid."

In all fairness, I don't think the shotgun ever left the truck.

How about the cans on Ginger, though?

And if you like redheads (I do), you have to love Lori.

Reply to
LRod

If they were smoking too they might have been mistaken for agents of the BATF....

Reply to
fredfighter

Which show was that. I'll make a point of not watching it. I presume there wasn't the obligatory, "don't try this at home" safety message.

Reply to
Scratch Ankle

It's not one I recall from the normal pak of that ilk. The ads in general show a make over from a dilapidated barn to a beautiful home. That's not what this show did but what it shows as their general advertising blurb. Its some realty company who buys cheap, fixes up then sells homes.

No safety msg (common sense though) was posted. It took a serious cavalier attitude towards alcohol, vigilantism and guns. I can live with vigilantism in some extreme cases but guns and alcohol don't mix and advocating such in a nationwide TV show was totally irresponsible on the part of the network (which one I didn't take note of). If I locate it again I'll write to them for sure to voice my displeasure over their stupidity to air that segment.

Grandpa John

Scratch Ankle wrote:

Reply to
John DeBoo

The vigilantism isn't of a particular concern to me. Regardless of how good a police force you have they are not going to sit on your property and stake out your property to protect it. Nor to protect you from someone who has threatened you for that matter. TV cop shows use this as a staple but it doesn't happen in real life except as an extremely rare instance. It is your responsibility to take care of your stuff. The guns don't bother me either. The booze bothers me a lot. Even without the guns, it's showing them drinking and driving apparently. Add the guns in and it's totally unbelievable it was shown without at least some disclaimer. Those idiots should have been spending some time in jail. And if the thieves could be found, they could share a cell.

I don't watch those flipping (?) shows so I guess I don't have to worry about boycotting them but it would be nice to know where that was aired to let them know that was totally irresponsible. I'm not sure the network isn't as dumb as those guys. I would think the show's producers would have been subject to some liability if those drunks had injured someone (thief or innocent bystander).

Reply to
Scratch Ankle

Are you sure this incident wasn't intended to be a dig at firearms owners?

Reply to
J. Clarke

The best defense might be to have Dick Chenny out there with beer in hand with his good old 28 gauge. That might be enough to scare anyone, let alone a thief away from a job site.

Incidently as a shooter, the beer on the day of the shoot before hunting was too much for me; that was totally irresponsible.

Randy

Reply to
Randy Dickinson

You are one sad, pathetic NeoCon - as are they all these days. Does any of your spew relate to anything relevant, or is it just another lame attempt to grind your brainwashed axe in public? Does everything in life - somehow - relate to Kennedy? Is Ted Kennedy truly the only excuse you can muster for all of the greed soaked, self-serving transgressions and cronyism exhibited by modern day Republicans?

I hate to be the one who points this out this FACT, but they are ALL lying bastards who would do you in a heartbeat to protect their own interests. On both sides of the fence.

You are simple fool at best.

And in true fear-mongering NeoCon fashion, you continue to spread the hate and fear. How about a new tag line for you, bubba:

100 years of oppression, rape, murder, and slavery - Never Forget.

See how STUPID that looks?

Take it elsewhere - you moronic shill.

Reply to
SuperNova

Yeah, much better to have 15 or 20 of them and then drive your illicit girlfriend home, drive off a bridge and leave her choking her life out in the bottom of a creek while you run away and sober up.

"Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns."

Reply to
Chuck

Hey TrollBoy, what festering commie-hole did you slither out of?

Good parrot-job. You sound just like...oh, I don't know, pick a Klintonite...

Reply to
Chuck

"Arch" wrote: Nothing, as far as I can see. Arch, did you hit send accidentally? Or is it me.

I"m not trying to make this thread, which has now drifted inappropriately off-topic, even more so. Yes, I am guilty of contributing to this, I know. But I can't go on without knowing what you were going to say, Arch.

Sorry, Scratch Ankle.

Reply to
Leo Lichtman

Seems to me he said all that was worthy on the matter....

Reply to
George

Hi Leo, No accident. I wrote exactly what I think we should speak of re politics.

Not directed at you, old friend nor anyone in particular, but maybe I said it too well for a change. :)

Turn to Safety, Arch Fortiter

formatting link

Reply to
Arch

"Arch" wrote: No accident. I wrote exactly what I think we should speak of re politics. (clip) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Thanks for helping me out here. I thought I might have missed something profound, and it turns out that I did.

I have seen publications from IBM with a page having only the following words: "This page intentionally left blank."

Reply to
Leo Lichtman

For my part, I don't mind the off topic discussion as long as it's in it's own thread. When it hijacks a thread I'm reading I have to wade through it and can't just filter it out. The worse part is when it starts to degenerate into childish name calling although I think the children get a bad rap for that since they learn from observing adults. Irritates me to no end when I see some of the things my son learned from me.

Reply to
Scratch Ankle

Which, of course, should read: "This page intentionally left otherwise blank." (or "This page intentionally left almost blank.")

Matt Heffron Inland Woodturners

Reply to
Matt Heffron

Either way, the same appears in many government publications. Presumably there is a standard somewhere over which some committee agonized for weeks before deciding to require that specific wording.

Reply to
J. Clarke

The government (or at least Federal Aviation Administration) rules for orders requires the statement on blank pages so that you can tell that the page is supposed to be empty, and not just a printer error. It sounds silly until you find a page that's really not supposed to be blank...

Keith Hughes

Reply to
Keith Hughes

I think we all understand the purpose. The humor comes from the page not being blank and the thought of a group of bureaucrats agonizing into the wee hours over whether it should be "this page intentionally left blank" or "this page is supposed to be blank" or "this page is supposed to be mostly blank" or "blank page" or . . .

Reply to
J. Clarke

InspirePoint website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.