Allow me to introduce myself - I am OS@M@
Posted: Mon Dec 24, 2007 3:05 pmHere is how you can remember me:
Conquer Club
Conquer Club, a free online multiplayer variation of a popular world domination board game.
https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/
Allow me to introduce myself - I am OS@M@
Page 1 of 2
Posted: Mon Dec 24, 2007 3:05 pmPosted: Mon Dec 24, 2007 3:06 pmAnother one from BH
Posted: Mon Dec 24, 2007 3:07 pm
Posted: Mon Dec 24, 2007 3:09 pmyoure a fag.
Posted: Mon Dec 24, 2007 3:14 pmParadiceCity9 wrote:fight?
FIGHT!
Posted: Mon Dec 24, 2007 3:16 pmthat may be a little more believable if you actually played a game.....lol
Posted: Mon Dec 24, 2007 3:17 pmI found a REAL picture of you.
Posted: Mon Dec 24, 2007 3:19 pmI will fight HC Trouble! I will fight Johnny Kuntz!
Posted: Mon Dec 24, 2007 3:20 pmhecter wrote:I found a REAL picture of you.
Your man sure is sexy with long hair...
Posted: Mon Dec 24, 2007 4:29 pmhector found another victim!!!
Posted: Mon Dec 24, 2007 4:42 pma-person1192 wrote:hector found another victim!!!
oh shitt!
Posted: Mon Dec 24, 2007 7:16 pma-person1192 wrote:hecter found another victim!!!
Oh,sh*t!
Cover your asses and run while you can!!!
fight?
Posted: Mon Dec 24, 2007 7:52 pmI will fight Hector!
BOSTON (AP) — During some of the bloodiest years of the drug wars of the 1980s, crack was seen as far more dangerous than powdered cocaine, and that perception was written into the sentencing laws. But now that notion is under attack like never before.
Criminologists, doctors and other experts say the differences between the two forms of the drug were largely exaggerated and do not justify the way the law comes down 100 times harder on crack.
A push to shrink the disparity in punishments got a boost last month when reduced federal sentencing guidelines went into effect for crack offenses. Then, earlier this month, the U.S. Sentencing Commission, which sets guidelines for federal cases, voted to make the reductions retroactive, allowing some 19,500 inmates, mostly black, to seek reductions in their crack sentences.
Many think the changes are long overdue.
Crack, because it is smoked and gets into the bloodstream faster than snorted cocaine, produces a more intense high and is generally considered more addictive than powdered cocaine.
But experts say that difference does not warrant the 100-to-1 disparity that was written into a 1986 law that set a mandatory minimum prison term of five years for trafficking in 5 grams of crack, or less than the amount in two packets of sugar. It would take 100 times as much cocaine to get the same sentence.
"There's no scientific justification to support the current laws," said Dr. Nora Volkow, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse.
Many defense lawyers and civil rights advocates say the lopsided perception of crack versus cocaine is rooted in racism. Four out of every five crack defendants are black, while most powdered-cocaine defendants are white.
While powdered cocaine became the drug of choice for middle- and upper-income Americans in the 1970s, crack emerged in the early 1980s as a much cheaper version of the same drug.
In the mid-1980s, powdered cocaine was typically sold by the half-gram or gram for $50 to $100, while crack was sold as small rocks that cost as little as $5 to $10. Crack became popular in poor, largely minority urban areas, and it developed an image as a drug used mostly by violent, inner-city youths.
"You had politicians manipulating fear, and instead of being seen as a more direct mode of ingestion of a very old drug, it became a demonic new substance," said Craig Reinarman, a sociology and legal-studies professor at the University of California at Santa Cruz who edited the 1997 book Crack in America: Demon Drugs and Social Justice about the rise of crack in the 1980s.
When crack first became popular, there was an increase in murders and other crimes associated with the drug. But the bloodshed was not necessarily the result of something inherent in crack.
Instead, most of that violence was typical for what happens when any illegal drug is introduced and drug dealers with guns compete for new markets, said Dr. Alfred Blumstein, a professor of urban systems and operations research at Carnegie-Mellon University.
Although there was already a great deal of concern about crack by 1986, the death of basketball star Len Bias in June of that year is seen as the pivotal event that spurred Congress to enact the much tougher sentences for crack offenses.
Bias was a star at the University of Maryland and had just been drafted by the Boston Celtics when he died. Initial news reports incorrectly said Bias died after using crack. It wasn't until months later that one of Bias' teammates testified that he had actually snorted cocaine the night be died.
By that time, the harsh penalties for crack crimes had already been passed by Congress, with a push from House Speaker Tip O'Neill of Massachusetts, whose Celtic-fan constituents were up in arms about Bias' death.
"Len Bias' death symbolized just how terrible this drug was," said Marc Mauer, executive director of The Sentencing Project, a criminal justice research and advocacy group based in Washington. "Here you had this promising young man on the verge of a very great basketball career and his life is taken away by the evils of crack cocaine."
The crack scare was also fueled by medical professionals who worried that pregnant women who used the drug would give birth to a generation of babies with severe neurological damage. But the "crack babies" theory has been largely debunked.
Dr. Harolyn Belcher, an associate professor of pediatrics at John Hopkins University School of Medicine, said there is no evidence that crack is biologically more harmful than powdered cocaine to the fetus or developing child.
"If I had a well-to-do family whose wife was at home snorting coke versus someone who is a mother who is out on the street using crack, the babies would look very similar," Belcher said.
Belcher said children who were exposed to crack or powdered cocaine in the uterus may be at slightly higher risks for language delays and attention deficits, but she said recent studies have shown that alcohol is far more devastating to the fetus.
John Steer, a member of the U.S. Sentencing Commission, said the commission first said in 1995 that the disparate punishments for crack and powdered cocaine defendants were not justified.
"The bottom-line conclusion is that for punishment purposes, they should be treated much more similarly than they are now. That's based upon the fact that in the real world, they are not as different overall as was initially thought," Steer said.
The reductions in the recommended sentences for crack offenses went into effect Nov. 1, but the guidelines do not affect the minimum mandatory sentences, which only Congress can change.
BOSTON (AP) — During some of the bloodiest years of the drug wars of the 1980s, crack was seen as far more dangerous than powdered cocaine, and that perception was written into the sentencing laws. But now that notion is under attack like never before.
Criminologists, doctors and other experts say the differences between the two forms of the drug were largely exaggerated and do not justify the way the law comes down 100 times harder on crack.
A push to shrink the disparity in punishments got a boost last month when reduced federal sentencing guidelines went into effect for crack offenses. Then, earlier this month, the U.S. Sentencing Commission, which sets guidelines for federal cases, voted to make the reductions retroactive, allowing some 19,500 inmates, mostly black, to seek reductions in their crack sentences.
Many think the changes are long overdue.
Crack, because it is smoked and gets into the bloodstream faster than snorted cocaine, produces a more intense high and is generally considered more addictive than powdered cocaine.
But experts say that difference does not warrant the 100-to-1 disparity that was written into a 1986 law that set a mandatory minimum prison term of five years for trafficking in 5 grams of crack, or less than the amount in two packets of sugar. It would take 100 times as much cocaine to get the same sentence.
"There's no scientific justification to support the current laws," said Dr. Nora Volkow, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse.
Many defense lawyers and civil rights advocates say the lopsided perception of crack versus cocaine is rooted in racism. Four out of every five crack defendants are black, while most powdered-cocaine defendants are white.
While powdered cocaine became the drug of choice for middle- and upper-income Americans in the 1970s, crack emerged in the early 1980s as a much cheaper version of the same drug.
In the mid-1980s, powdered cocaine was typically sold by the half-gram or gram for $50 to $100, while crack was sold as small rocks that cost as little as $5 to $10. Crack became popular in poor, largely minority urban areas, and it developed an image as a drug used mostly by violent, inner-city youths.
"You had politicians manipulating fear, and instead of being seen as a more direct mode of ingestion of a very old drug, it became a demonic new substance," said Craig Reinarman, a sociology and legal-studies professor at the University of California at Santa Cruz who edited the 1997 book Crack in America: Demon Drugs and Social Justice about the rise of crack in the 1980s.
When crack first became popular, there was an increase in murders and other crimes associated with the drug. But the bloodshed was not necessarily the result of something inherent in crack.
Instead, most of that violence was typical for what happens when any illegal drug is introduced and drug dealers with guns compete for new markets, said Dr. Alfred Blumstein, a professor of urban systems and operations research at Carnegie-Mellon University.
Although there was already a great deal of concern about crack by 1986, the death of basketball star Len Bias in June of that year is seen as the pivotal event that spurred Congress to enact the much tougher sentences for crack offenses.
Bias was a star at the University of Maryland and had just been drafted by the Boston Celtics when he died. Initial news reports incorrectly said Bias died after using crack. It wasn't until months later that one of Bias' teammates testified that he had actually snorted cocaine the night be died.
By that time, the harsh penalties for crack crimes had already been passed by Congress, with a push from House Speaker Tip O'Neill of Massachusetts, whose Celtic-fan constituents were up in arms about Bias' death.
"Len Bias' death symbolized just how terrible this drug was," said Marc Mauer, executive director of The Sentencing Project, a criminal justice research and advocacy group based in Washington. "Here you had this promising young man on the verge of a very great basketball career and his life is taken away by the evils of crack cocaine."
The crack scare was also fueled by medical professionals who worried that pregnant women who used the drug would give birth to a generation of babies with severe neurological damage. But the "crack babies" theory has been largely debunked.
Dr. Harolyn Belcher, an associate professor of pediatrics at John Hopkins University School of Medicine, said there is no evidence that crack is biologically more harmful than powdered cocaine to the fetus or developing child.
"If I had a well-to-do family whose wife was at home snorting coke versus someone who is a mother who is out on the street using crack, the babies would look very similar," Belcher said.
Belcher said children who were exposed to crack or powdered cocaine in the uterus may be at slightly higher risks for language delays and attention deficits, but she said recent studies have shown that alcohol is far more devastating to the fetus.
John Steer, a member of the U.S. Sentencing Commission, said the commission first said in 1995 that the disparate punishments for crack and powdered cocaine defendants were not justified.
"The bottom-line conclusion is that for punishment purposes, they should be treated much more similarly than they are now. That's based upon the fact that in the real world, they are not as different overall as was initially thought," Steer said.
The reductions in the recommended sentences for crack offenses went into effect Nov. 1, but the guidelines do not affect the minimum mandatory sentences, which only Congress can change.
Posted: Mon Dec 24, 2007 8:26 pmWow... That makes me glad I'm a cocaine kinda guy...
Posted: Mon Dec 24, 2007 8:30 pmBrawl hall really must be struggling...I mean, I even tried to get on there...and it is not recognised as an operating site...what a sad christmas it must be for these sad individuals.
Merry fucking christmas, cock-chops.
Merry fucking christmas, cock-chops.
Posted: Mon Dec 24, 2007 8:31 pmNorse wrote:Brawl hall really must be struggling...I mean, I even tried to get on there...and it is not recognised as an operating site...what a sad christmas it must be for these sad individuals.
Merry fucking christmas, cock-chops.
It's brawl-hall followed by a .com
Works for me.
Posted: Mon Dec 24, 2007 8:38 pmDoesn't work for me...and believe me mate, Ive been attempting to get in there for a couple weeks now.
FULL OF FAIL
FULL OF FAIL
Posted: Mon Dec 24, 2007 8:45 pmNorse wrote:Doesn't work for me...and believe me mate, Ive been attempting to get in there for a couple weeks now.
FULL OF FAIL
I wouldn't worry about it... It's just a forum full of people like the ones you've seen as of late and porn.
Posted: Mon Dec 24, 2007 9:01 pmhecter wrote:Norse wrote:Doesn't work for me...and believe me mate, Ive been attempting to get in there for a couple weeks now.
FULL OF FAIL
I wouldn't worry about it... It's just a forum full of people like the ones you've seen as of late and porn.
Let's not slag off Porn, eh?
Posted: Mon Dec 24, 2007 9:03 pmNorse wrote:hecter wrote:Norse wrote:Doesn't work for me...and believe me mate, Ive been attempting to get in there for a couple weeks now.
FULL OF FAIL
I wouldn't worry about it... It's just a forum full of people like the ones you've seen as of late and porn.
Let's not slag off Porn, eh?
Hey, I got nothing against porn, I just prefer something less... traditional.
Posted: Tue Dec 25, 2007 2:24 amOoh... sounds kinky! What are we talking about?hecter wrote:Hey, I got nothing against porn, I just prefer something less... traditional.
Chix dig fistfights; so naturally the dig me too
Posted: Tue Dec 25, 2007 4:54 am
Posted: Tue Dec 25, 2007 6:51 amWhat exactly is OS@M@ trying to hide? Why can't OS@M@ simply enjoy the fruits of his own labors and let other people enjoy the fruits of theirs? And will peeling back the onion of OS@M@'s cranky communiqués cause OS@M@ to shed tears or will it merely enhance his desire to sue people at random? This letter is not the place to explore the answers to those questions. Its purpose is instead to provide information and inspiration to as many people as possible. For complete details, I refer you to my forthcoming book on the subject. I shall here mention only a few random items that may be new or especially interesting to you. For instance, I realize that some people may have trouble reading this letter. Granted, not everyone knows what "historicocabbalistical" means, but it's nevertheless easy to understand that OS@M@ is interpersonally exploitative. That is, he takes advantage of others to achieve his own disruptive ends. Why does he do that? On the surface, it would seem to have something to do with the way that the cure for corruption, conspiracy, and treason must start by exposing the problem to people who care and are not themselves corrupted. But upon further investigation one will find that OS@M@ has hatched all sorts of intolerant, laughable plans. Remember his attempt to lash out at everyone and everything in sight? No? That's because OS@M@'s so good at concealing his stingy activities.
Some people are responsible and others are not. OS@M@ falls into the category of "not". How dare he flush all my hopes and dreams down the toilet? One might suspect that one of his unidimensional arguments is that all it takes to solve our social woes are shotgun marriages, heavy-handed divorce laws, and a return to some mythical 1950s Shangri-la. While that's true, it does somewhat miss the point. You see, he lives in a mental and emotional la-la land. But let's not lose sight of the larger, more important issue here: his warped taradiddles.
There is only one way to stop OS@M@ from giving rise to otiose criminal masterminds. We must make out of fools, wise people; out of fanatics, men of sense; out of idlers, workers; out of licentious adulterers, people who are willing to tell OS@M@ what we all think of him -- and boy, do I have some choice words I'd like to use. Then together we can straighten out his thinking. Together we can show the world that we must overcome the fears that beset us every day of our lives. We must overcome the fear that OS@M@ will violate the basic tenets of journalism and scholarship. And to overcome these fears, we must move as expeditiously as possible to snap OS@M@'s lickspittles out of their trance.
OS@M@ hates people who have huge supplies of the things he lacks. What he lacks the most is common sense, which underlies my point that a large percentage of OS@M@'s coadjutors can be termed libidinous. I'll go further: It would be wrong to imply that OS@M@ is involved in some kind of conspiracy to blitz media outlets with faxes and newsletters that highlight the good points of his baleful prank phone calls. It would be wrong because his insults are far beyond the conspiracy stage. Not only that, but I have often maintained that reasonable people can reasonably disagree. Unfortunately, when dealing with OS@M@ and his spokesmen, that claim assumes facts not in evidence. So let me claim instead that whenever there's an argument about OS@M@'s devotion to principles and to freedom, all one has to do is point out that OS@M@ is wallowing in the sty of denominationalism. That should settle the argument pretty quickly.
OS@M@ is locked into his present course of destruction. He does not have the interest or the will to change his fundamentally crass modes of thought. I wonder if he really believes the things he says. He knows they're not true, doesn't he? My best guess, for what it may be worth, is based on two key observations. The first observation is that he is totally unmovable by truth or reason. The second, more telling, observation is that in a tacit concession of defeat, OS@M@ is now openly calling for the abridgment of various freedoms to accomplish coercively what his rotten, prodigal bromides have failed at. So far, the response from OS@M@'s camp has been tardy and equivocal. Period, finis, and Q.E.D.
Some people are responsible and others are not. OS@M@ falls into the category of "not". How dare he flush all my hopes and dreams down the toilet? One might suspect that one of his unidimensional arguments is that all it takes to solve our social woes are shotgun marriages, heavy-handed divorce laws, and a return to some mythical 1950s Shangri-la. While that's true, it does somewhat miss the point. You see, he lives in a mental and emotional la-la land. But let's not lose sight of the larger, more important issue here: his warped taradiddles.
There is only one way to stop OS@M@ from giving rise to otiose criminal masterminds. We must make out of fools, wise people; out of fanatics, men of sense; out of idlers, workers; out of licentious adulterers, people who are willing to tell OS@M@ what we all think of him -- and boy, do I have some choice words I'd like to use. Then together we can straighten out his thinking. Together we can show the world that we must overcome the fears that beset us every day of our lives. We must overcome the fear that OS@M@ will violate the basic tenets of journalism and scholarship. And to overcome these fears, we must move as expeditiously as possible to snap OS@M@'s lickspittles out of their trance.
OS@M@ hates people who have huge supplies of the things he lacks. What he lacks the most is common sense, which underlies my point that a large percentage of OS@M@'s coadjutors can be termed libidinous. I'll go further: It would be wrong to imply that OS@M@ is involved in some kind of conspiracy to blitz media outlets with faxes and newsletters that highlight the good points of his baleful prank phone calls. It would be wrong because his insults are far beyond the conspiracy stage. Not only that, but I have often maintained that reasonable people can reasonably disagree. Unfortunately, when dealing with OS@M@ and his spokesmen, that claim assumes facts not in evidence. So let me claim instead that whenever there's an argument about OS@M@'s devotion to principles and to freedom, all one has to do is point out that OS@M@ is wallowing in the sty of denominationalism. That should settle the argument pretty quickly.
OS@M@ is locked into his present course of destruction. He does not have the interest or the will to change his fundamentally crass modes of thought. I wonder if he really believes the things he says. He knows they're not true, doesn't he? My best guess, for what it may be worth, is based on two key observations. The first observation is that he is totally unmovable by truth or reason. The second, more telling, observation is that in a tacit concession of defeat, OS@M@ is now openly calling for the abridgment of various freedoms to accomplish coercively what his rotten, prodigal bromides have failed at. So far, the response from OS@M@'s camp has been tardy and equivocal. Period, finis, and Q.E.D.
Posted: Tue Dec 25, 2007 6:54 amMan, I'd almost forgotten that thing before MeDee posted it.
Posted: Tue Dec 25, 2007 11:18 am
I don't know who the girl on the left is... but I'd hit her harder than Superman probably hits guys who diss his dead mother when they get drunk in bars.
Probably the best thing that can happen to this thread is if we just find a load of pictures of her (the girl on the left, or Superman's mum) and post them here so that other posters can get some practice dancing their five-knuckle shuffles.