Quote
Sometimes zero tolerance makes zero sense.
Take the case of former Marine Ryan Jerome, an Indiana jeweler arrested last September at the Empire State Building for carrying a .45-caliber handgun — legally purchased and licensed in his home state.
It's not as if Jerome was trying to hide the gun. He volunteered to security personnel that he was carrying it, and actually tried to check it. Nor is he a notorious gangster; he was carrying some $15,000 in jewelry, and needed the gun for protection.
Yes, he did misunderstand New York's gun laws; possessing an illegal pistol in the Empire State is a Class C felony, with a mandatory 3 1/2 year sentence. But that hardly makes him a menace to society.
Yes, Manhattan DA Cyrus Vance has offered to take a felony charge off the table if Jerome pleads guilty to a misdemeanor, pays a $1,000 fine and performs 10 days of community service.
Vance clearly thinks this is a reasonable deal. Jerome thinks otherwise, and he's willing to go to trial.
This is risky business, but principle matters to some people.
There is nothing in the public record that suggests Jerome is anything other than a law-abiding citizen — indeed, one who has served his country honorably.
If the DA has evidence to the contrary, he should lay it out for all to see.
But if he doesn't, Vance would do well to exercise prosecutorial discretion and wipe the slate clean.
After all, doesn't the DA support no-questions-asked gun buy-back programs — where actual criminals walk in and get money for their illegal weapons?
Where's the justice?
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nypost.com%2Frw%2Fnypost%2F2012%2F02%2F17%2Foped%2Fweb_photos%2Fryan_jerome_edit--300x300.jpg&hash=5792f49973719bf80705ae0dce2b4e92500f92a5)
Check out this fabulous letter his lawyer wrote to the ADA. It will be interesting to see what happens.
http://www.nypost.com/rw/nypost/2012/02/15/media/021512_marine_letter.pdf (http://www.nypost.com/rw/nypost/2012/02/15/media/021512_marine_letter.pdf)
I'm curious how lower jurisdictions get away with subverting the second amendment. I'm sure you can explain the legal wranglings to me, but can it be dumbed down enough for an ex-tanker to understand?
Quote from: bayonetbrant on February 22, 2012, 10:10:30 AM
I'm curious how lower jurisdictions get away with subverting the second amendment. I'm sure you can explain the legal wranglings to me, but can it be dumbed down enough for an ex-tanker to understand?
After watching LB's required Constitution 101 class.....it is all about the placement of the comma;
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.A regulated Militia is a need and because this need sometimes leads to tyranny the check and balance was added by inserting the comma and not allowing the government to infringe on everyone's rights to own and bear arms.
On a personal note, today's Militia has machineguns, rockets......in order for the check and balance to keep up with the times, I should be able to own the same type of weapons without federal infringement.
First step would be to repeal the Firearms Owner's Protection Act of 1986
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KFiPvE-aHw
it's all about the comma
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.caption-of-the-day.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F02%2Fstop-clubbing-baby-seals.jpg&hash=84622f75f44cc504562241f1f6ba66ff3403b526)
Quote from: Smuckatelli on February 22, 2012, 12:06:23 PM
Quote from: bayonetbrant on February 22, 2012, 10:10:30 AM
I'm curious how lower jurisdictions get away with subverting the second amendment. I'm sure you can explain the legal wranglings to me, but can it be dumbed down enough for an ex-tanker to understand?
After watching LB's required Constitution 101 class.....it is all about the placement of the comma;
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
A regulated Militia is a need and because this need sometimes leads to tyranny the check and balance was added by inserting the comma and not allowing the government to infringe on everyone's rights to own and bear arms.
On a personal note, today's Militia has machineguns, rockets......in order for the check and balance to keep up with the times, I should be able to own the same type of weapons without federal infringement.
First step would be to repeal the Firearms Owner's Protection Act of 1986
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KFiPvE-aHw
Constitutional Theory AND Grammar!
He's always and LT to me! (https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1081.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fj349%2Flongblade%2FSmilies%2Fstereo.gif&hash=760f5dace8be064b38e6e159a165163c7c90a819)
Quote from: Smuckatelli on February 22, 2012, 12:06:23 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KFiPvE-aHw
OK, let's look at the absurdity of this act.
- About the 2:15 mark this guy notes that a full auto M16 will run upwards of $20k.
- So we know these guns exist.
- But we can't own new ones.
- And in places around the world something like an AK can be bought for $300
Now I can't say that I'm really interested in owning my customized, Orange County Cycles pimped out MLRS, but it is absurd to suggest that bad guys won't modify their own weapons if they wanted to.
This just seems silly. But these days silly seems to be the new fashion.
Edit: Fixed. Gotta be smarter than the HTML code somedays.
[/list]
That comma really gave me a V8 moment.
People have been arguing that the 2nd doesn't apply to today's United States; the founding fathers couldn't have seen the lethality of today's weapons. They didn't have to, the need for a militia was indisputable as it is today. The comma takes the link between the people and the militia out of the discussion. The people must be able to bear arms in order to have a check & balance between the militia and the people.
The people are sovereign, not the government.
Quote from: Smuckatelli on February 22, 2012, 01:38:51 PM
That comma really gave me a V8 moment.
People have been arguing that the 2nd doesn't apply to today's United States; the founding fathers couldn't have seen the lethality of today's weapons. They didn't have to, the need for a militia was indisputable as it is today. The comma takes the link between the people and the militia out of the discussion. The people must be able to bear arms in order to have a check & balance between the militia and the people.
The people are sovereign, not the government.
At the time a Brown Bess was as state-of-the-art-lethal as a weapon could be. Arguing that newer technologies shouldn't be included is to miss the point: the 2nd Amendment is about being able to own your very own M1 if you so choose.
I choose not. But there ya go.
Maybe Jarhead will be able to rack up enough fees to get get us all a new CV someday and we can all go joyriding.
Quote from: LongBlade on February 22, 2012, 01:35:02 PM
Quote from: Smuckatelli on February 22, 2012, 12:06:23 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KFiPvE-aHw
OK, let's look at the absurdity of this act.
About the 2:15 mark this guy notes that a full auto M16 will run upwards of $20k.
So we know these guns exist.
But we can't own new ones.
And in places around the world something like an AK can be bought for $300
[/list]
Now I can't say that I'm really interested in owning my customized, Orange County Cycles pimped out MLRS, but it is absurd to suggest that bad guys won't modify their own weapons if they wanted to.
This just seems silly. But these days silly seems to be the new fashion.
Edit: despite my efforts to remove the extra HTML, the forums have decided to muck with it anyway. Neat.
It was all nicely packaged as the 'Firearms Owner's Protection Act of 1986' We the sheep of the United States accepted this as a method to protect our 2nd Amendment Rights when in all actuality it carved out big chunks of the 2nd Amendment.
This is exactly what is going on with the 1st and the separation of church/state. We the sheep of the United States are allowing the government to convince us that it is a women's health issue. That isn't intended to be a cheap shot at anyone, just an observation.
We need to look at the Constitutional Issues withou letting our personal or the media's beliefs cloud decisionmaking.
Quote from: LongBlade on February 22, 2012, 01:42:26 PM
................................................the 2nd Amendment is about being able to own your very own M1......
as a sovereign check on the power of the government and or militia.
Quote from: LongBlade on February 22, 2012, 01:26:49 PM
Constitutional Theory AND Grammar!
He's always and LT to me! (https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1081.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fj349%2Flongblade%2FSmilies%2Fstereo.gif&hash=760f5dace8be064b38e6e159a165163c7c90a819)
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fl.yimg.com%2Fus.yimg.com%2Fi%2Fmesg%2Femoticons7%2F40.gif&hash=9b8934f168a50eb13bb8fb9b186c272d3319773e)
Quote from: bayonetbrant on February 22, 2012, 02:04:34 PM
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fl.yimg.com%2Fus.yimg.com%2Fi%2Fmesg%2Femoticons7%2F40.gif&hash=9b8934f168a50eb13bb8fb9b186c272d3319773e)
Did you have baked beans for breakfast?
Quote from: bayonetbrant on February 22, 2012, 10:10:30 AM
I'm curious how lower jurisdictions get away with subverting the second amendment. I'm sure you can explain the legal wranglings to me, but can it be dumbed down enough for an ex-tanker to understand?
Maybe they're simply going with as narrow an interpretation as possible? (Or would it be as broad an interpretation as possible?)
Quote from: LongBlade on February 22, 2012, 01:42:26 PM
the 2nd Amendment is about being able to own your very own M1 if you so choose.
I'd much prefer either an F-22 or F-35 (if they ever manage to get the frickin' thing out the door that is), although I suppose that's conditional on my being able to park/store it on
Jarhead's CV.
You know, I just realized the
Enterprise is due for decommissioning next year...
Quote from: Smuckatelli on February 22, 2012, 12:06:23 PM
Quote from: bayonetbrant on February 22, 2012, 10:10:30 AM
I'm curious how lower jurisdictions get away with subverting the second amendment. I'm sure you can explain the legal wranglings to me, but can it be dumbed down enough for an ex-tanker to understand?
After watching LB's required Constitution 101 class.....it is all about the placement of the comma;
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
A regulated Militia is a need and because this need sometimes leads to tyranny the check and balance was added by inserting the comma and not allowing the government to infringe on everyone's rights to own and bear arms.
On a personal note, today's Militia has machineguns, rockets......in order for the check and balance to keep up with the times, I should be able to own the same type of weapons without federal infringement.
First step would be to repeal the Firearms Owner's Protection Act of 1986
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KFiPvE-aHw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KFiPvE-aHw)
What about your own carrier battle group? Or armed nuke silos? You could be modest with just an armed f16. Will the FAA let citizens fly around in their own gunships? No. You will get escorted to a runway where your asset will be seized.
The balance is between the potential to destroy the way of life of others vs personal freedoms. If an ancient law is completely out of touch with the modern world it can be a guide only. Following it to the letter makes no sense. In the arab spring, the countries that changed without fighting did not rely on a second amendment type rule. The ones that were changed with conflict had State level assets interveneing (Libya) without which the revolution would be squashed.
Back to the original post. He should walk free. He had a simple misunderstanding of the laws. His intent was not to challenge the law. The problem will be when others do something similar with intent to change the law. Then you can have many people walking around with guns just to prove a point. Their attitude is more ornery than the average citizen. They will tend to do stupid things in other situations.
Quote from: Mr. Bigglesworth on February 22, 2012, 03:55:41 PMIf an ancient law is completely out of touch with the modern world it can be a guide only.
There is a perfectly functioning apparatus to change any law, ancient or otherwise, that the public might wish to change. Unilaterally abrogating it without regard to the process is both illegal and imperious.
Quote from: Mr. Bigglesworth on February 22, 2012, 03:55:41 PM
What about your own carrier battle group? Or armed nuke silos? You could be modest with just an armed f16. Will the FAA let citizens fly around in their own gunships? No. You will get escorted to a runway where your asset will be seized.
Kev, your above questions are beyond sophomoric. How is an individual going to own and operate a carrier battle group, nuke silos, F-16, gunships? One person couldn't operate those systems, numerous could but than again....that would make them a militia wouldn't it?
Quote from: Mr. Bigglesworth on February 22, 2012, 03:55:41 PMThe balance is between the potential to destroy the way of life of others vs personal freedoms. If an ancient law is completely out of touch with the modern world it can be a guide only. Following it to the letter makes no sense. In the arab spring, the countries that changed without fighting did not rely on a second amendment type rule. The ones that were changed with conflict had State level assets interveneing (Libya) without which the revolution would be squashed.
The balance is between what the sovereigns determine the government can or can not do. You pulling the Arab Spring into this thread is a strawman arguement.
Quote from: Mr. Bigglesworth on February 22, 2012, 03:55:41 PMBack to the original post. He should walk free. He had a simple misunderstanding of the laws.
The LAW, the Constitution is very clear that his right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That is the law. The misunderstanding isn't from him, it is from the people that determined the Constitution doesn't apply.
Quote from: Smuckatelli on February 22, 2012, 04:48:35 PM
The LAW, the Constitution is very clear that his right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That is the law. The misunderstanding isn't from him, it is from the people that determined the Constitution doesn't apply.
I wish, wish, wish, this were true. Unfortunately, the SCOTUS has affirmatively ruled it is not. :'(
According to the Supreme Court, States and municipalities are permitted to enact laws regulating the ownership of firearms, so long as the laws do not constitute,
prima facie, an all out ban.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on February 22, 2012, 04:55:09 PM
Quote from: Smuckatelli on February 22, 2012, 04:48:35 PM
The LAW, the Constitution is very clear that his right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That is the law. The misunderstanding isn't from him, it is from the people that determined the Constitution doesn't apply.
I wish, wish, wish, this were true. Unfortunately, the SCOTUS has affirmatively ruled it is not. :'(
According to the Supreme Court, States and municipalities are permitted to enact laws regulating the ownership of firearms.
I'm thinking, hoping that with all of the assaults that have been happening on the Constitution, just maybe this crap will stop.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on February 22, 2012, 04:55:09 PM
Quote from: Smuckatelli on February 22, 2012, 04:48:35 PM
The LAW, the Constitution is very clear that his right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That is the law. The misunderstanding isn't from him, it is from the people that determined the Constitution doesn't apply.
I wish, wish, wish, this were true. Unfortunately, the SCOTUS has affirmatively ruled it is not. :'(
According to the Supreme Court, States and municipalities are permitted to enact laws regulating the ownership of firearms, so long as the laws do not constitute, prima facie, an all out ban.
Right. Furthermore, ignorance of the law is not an excuse. If you're going to carry a firearm into a new jurisdiction, the onus is on you to know and understand the law there. You don't have to agree with it and you certainly within your rights to challenge it, but it is the law there until it is otherwise changed or stricken down.
I'm very disappointed in JH and Smuck for letting this slide:
QuoteTake the case of former Marine Ryan Jerome, an Indiana jeweler arrested last September at the Empire State Building for carrying a .45-caliber handgun — legally purchased and licensed in his home state.
I said this once... and only once... ;)
EDIT:
I'm not sure I find that comma argument very convincing. That is a lot of meaning behind a grammatical construct whose import and usage differs quite a bit from the 18th century. Better to focus on other, more compelling evidence from the personal writings of the founding fathers. I'm not saying this to argue against any particular interpretation of the Second Amendment given here... just - as a comma user and abuser - I wouldn't base a Supreme Court decision on the commas in my research or anything. :P
Quote from: son_of_montfort on February 22, 2012, 05:59:19 PM
EDIT:
I'm not sure I find that comma argument very convincing. That is a lot of meaning behind a grammatical construct whose import and usage differs quite a bit from the 18th century. Better to focus on other, more compelling evidence from the personal writings of the founding fathers. I'm not saying this to argue against any particular interpretation of the Second Amendment given here... just - as a comma user and abuser - I wouldn't base a Supreme Court decision on the commas in my research or anything. :P
You would be mistaken to underestimate the significance of grammar where statutory interpretation is concerned. It simply cannot be ignored or discounted. It is critical...there are whole volumes written on the issue.
Punctuation can make an extreme difference. For example:
Quote
A woman, without her man, is nothing.
A woman: without her, man is nothing.
...or
Quote
Dear Jack,
I want a man who knows what love is all about. You are generous, kind, thoughtful. People who are not like you admit to being useless and inferior. You have ruined me for other men. I yearn for you. I have no feelings whatsoever when we're apart. I can be forever happy - will you let me be yours?
Jill
Dear Jack,
I want a man who knows what love is. All about you are generous, kind, thoughtful people, who are not like you. Admit to being useless and inferior. You have ruined me. For other men I yearn! For you I have no feelings whatsoever. When we're apart I can be forever happy. Will you let ...
QuoteYou would be mistaken to underestimate the significance of grammar where statutory interpretation is concerned. It simply cannot be ignored or discounted. It is critical...there are whole volumes written on the issue.
You would also be mistaken in overestimating the seriousness of the pre-modern comma. Medieval statutes didn't use any punctuation - periods, commas, etc. And they had a functioning legal society. ;)
But if you are so interested in the import of commas, I have 280 pages of proofreading for you - if you want to make sure I used all my commas correctly? ;D
Quote from: son_of_montfort on February 22, 2012, 08:54:57 PM
QuoteYou would be mistaken to underestimate the significance of grammar where statutory interpretation is concerned. It simply cannot be ignored or discounted. It is critical...there are whole volumes written on the issue.
You would also be mistaken in overestimating the seriousness of the pre-modern comma. Medieval statutes didn't use any punctuation - periods, commas, etc. And they had a functioning legal society. ;)
But if you are so interested in the import of commas, I have 280 pages of proofreading for you - if you want to make sure I used all my commas correctly? ;D
I'll make a deal with you. Don't advise me with respect to the law and the way it works, and I won't try to explain to you how Medieval society functioned. By the way smart guy, I already have my degree and a professional license. tell me when you're finished with yours so I can congratulate you! :P
QuoteI'll make a deal with you. Don't advise me with respect to the law and the way it works, and I won't try to explain to you how Medieval society functioned.
Wow, you got your legal degree in 18th century statutory law and grammar? You realize that my expertise in statutory law is closer, both temporally and socially, to 1776 than your expertise on 2012? Just saying. ;D
QuoteBy the way smart guy, I already have my degree and a professional license. tell me when you're finished with yours so I can congratulate you!
I'm in no mood to joke about the progress of my professional license. It hasn't been the best two weeks in that regard.
Quote from: son_of_montfort on February 22, 2012, 09:20:21 PM
Wow, you got your legal degree in 18th century statutory law and grammar? You realize that my expertise in statutory law is closer, both temporally and socially, to 1776 than your expertise on 2012? Just saying. ;D
What the hell do you study exactly? Isn't it all just knights, dragons, English wenches, and inbred royalty crap?
Quote from: son_of_montfort on February 22, 2012, 09:20:21 PM
I'm in no mood to joke about the progress of my professional license. It hasn't been the best two weeks in that regard.
Eeek...sorry, dude.
Quote from: son_of_montfort on February 22, 2012, 09:20:21 PM
Wow, you got your legal degree in 18th century statutory law and grammar? You realize that my expertise in statutory law is closer, both temporally and socially, to 1776 than your expertise on 2012?
Actually (and I'm sure JH can speak with more authority to this) law can very commonly reach back to the 18th Century. I've chatted with attorneys in Louisiana who have told me that some parts of their law goes back to French Napoleonic code.
And that some of their law goes back to
Roman law.
If I were you I'd retreat from this line of attack, SoM. Just sayin' ;)
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on February 22, 2012, 09:27:16 PM
What the hell do you study exactly? Isn't it all just knights, dragons, English wenches, and inbred royalty crap?
<snicker>
QuoteI'm in no mood to joke about the progress of my professional license. It hasn't been the best two weeks in that regard.
Eeek...sorry, dude.
[/quote]
+1
Quote from: son_of_montfort on February 22, 2012, 05:59:19 PM
EDIT:
I'm not sure I find that comma argument very convincing. That is a lot of meaning behind a grammatical construct whose import and usage differs quite a bit from the 18th century. Better to focus on other, more compelling evidence from the personal writings of the founding fathers.
SoM, you need to take the class if you can find some time. He built his case off of the federalist papers which just so happen to be personal writings used by Hamilton, Jay, and Madison promoting the ratification of the Constitution.
Quote from: LongBlade on February 22, 2012, 09:29:00 PM
Quote from: son_of_montfort on February 22, 2012, 09:20:21 PM
Wow, you got your legal degree in 18th century statutory law and grammar? You realize that my expertise in statutory law is closer, both temporally and socially, to 1776 than your expertise on 2012?
Actually (and I'm sure JH can speak with more authority to this) law can very commonly reach back to the 18th Century. I've chatted with attorneys in Louisiana who have told me that some parts of their law goes back to French Napoleonic code.
And that some of their law goes back to Roman law.
If I were you I'd retreat from this line of attack, SoM. Just sayin' ;)
What the hell do you think the medieval statutes I study was based off of? ;) America uses a lot of English Common Law, and that stretches back to the 14th century and before. Louisiana's use of the Napoleonic code is actually "new" in comparison. But the Constitution looked backward for inspiration, not forward (although sometimes the Founders do seem like time-traveling wizards) ,which is why I said it was socially more similar to my period than 2012.
I think you would be surprised at how much the stuff I look at, in regards to statutes, would be similar to the stuff JH does, in practice, today. Particularly contracts and such. One of the major documents I used is a listing of rights held by my city of choice. You all would find it fascinating. Someday, I'll let you read the chapter I wrote on it.
QuoteWhat the hell do you study exactly? Isn't it all just knights, dragons, English wenches, and inbred royalty crap?
You would be shocked at just how inbred the family of royalty I study were. Queen Joan of Naples married not one but two cousins. I'm hurt about the statement of English wenches. Do you really think I am so dull and boring that I would study medieval England... ;) It's the Mediterranean all the way! I study the legal culture of debt reclamation against foreign citizens. They called this rights of marque (like the privateers) but it operated like an asset seizure or lien. Also, it was a civic right to use this procedure, which makes it a little more interesting.
QuoteSoM, you need to take the class if you can find some time.
I'll try. But I'm not going to lie, the last two months were some of the worst in my life in terms of stress, disappointment, self-doubt and rage. If I can get myself to this sorry watering hole or boot up Crusader Kings II or some visceral thing like Mass Effect 2, I consider it precious time. :-[
Quote from: son_of_montfort on February 22, 2012, 11:09:25 PM
I'll try. But I'm not going to lie, the last two months were some of the worst in my life in terms of stress, disappointment, self-doubt and rage. If I can get myself to this sorry watering hole or boot up Crusader Kings II or some visceral thing like Mass Effect 2, I consider it precious time. :-[
So what the heck happened man? Or has this already been explained somewhere, like in the "so there I was" thread? I can never keep up with that thread.
Quote from: son_of_montfort on February 22, 2012, 11:09:25 PM
But I'm not going to lie, the last two months were some of the worst in my life in terms of stress, disappointment, self-doubt and rage. If I can get myself to this sorry watering hole or boot up Crusader Kings II or some visceral thing like Mass Effect 2, I consider it precious time. :-[
I second
Jarhead's question: What the hell happened?
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on February 23, 2012, 06:39:32 AM
Quote from: son_of_montfort on February 22, 2012, 11:09:25 PM
I'll try. But I'm not going to lie, the last two months were some of the worst in my life in terms of stress, disappointment, self-doubt and rage. If I can get myself to this sorry watering hole or boot up Crusader Kings II or some visceral thing like Mass Effect 2, I consider it precious time. :-[
So what the heck happened man? Or has this already been explained somewhere, like in the "so there I was" thread? I can never keep up with that thread.
I'm not sure it is worth going into over the internet. Let's just say a compilation of finishing and editing thesis stress, job market, and personal stuff that my wife and I are facing (together, not versus - thankfully). I'm sure some would think I'm just being a whiner, but individually this stuff piles up. Thanks for the concern though - it is appreciated.
Your success is important to us.
Quote from: son_of_montfort on February 23, 2012, 11:18:01 AM
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on February 23, 2012, 06:39:32 AM
Quote from: son_of_montfort on February 22, 2012, 11:09:25 PM
I'll try. But I'm not going to lie, the last two months were some of the worst in my life in terms of stress, disappointment, self-doubt and rage. If I can get myself to this sorry watering hole or boot up Crusader Kings II or some visceral thing like Mass Effect 2, I consider it precious time. :-[
So what the heck happened man? Or has this already been explained somewhere, like in the "so there I was" thread? I can never keep up with that thread.
I'm not sure it is worth going into over the internet. Let's just say a compilation of finishing and editing thesis stress, job market, and personal stuff that my wife and I are facing (together, not versus - thankfully). I'm sure some would think I'm just being a whiner, but individually this stuff piles up. Thanks for the concern though - it is appreciated.
You know we have your back, SoM. Arguing about politics don't mean shit, you're a good guy. You know where to reach me on Facebook. Don't let this weathered, leather jacket (or face) fool you, you know I care.
Gotcha guys, I'm not too man enough to say I get a little misty knowing you all send good vibes! :'( ;D
SoM I hope that some of the help I gave you when you reached out did some good. I didn't realize it was your time in the barrel. I hope it gets better for you soon. If you need a little career counseling from a professional, let me know. I have a guy who is quite the miracle worker.
Quote from: Gusington on February 23, 2012, 03:21:11 PM
SoM I hope that some of the help I gave you when you reached out did some good. I didn't realize it was your time in the barrel. I hope it gets better for you soon. If you need a little career counseling from a professional, let me know. I have a guy who is quite the miracle worker.
It helped, but unfortunately didn't pan out. :-[