Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

For the record, and the humourless, I do not condone violence against sex workers

For the record, if you need to say that you were trying to be humorous; then you probably weren't.

 rubiksnoob wrote:

Unfortunately those don't shoot up high enough to be useful for this. Also, they rapid fire in serial but you don't get one huge volley of 100 shots. (darn it!)

The will scare away anything you are hunting though.

Oh, and my horses HATE when we set them off anywhere near the pastures....

 dogma wrote:
For the record, if you need to say that you were trying to be humorous; then to probably weren't.

Seeing as we had an outbreak of seriousness in a thread about DU shotgun shells, fireworks, Kamakazi RC aircraft attacks and other assorted craziness I thought I'd make sure it was taken in jest before the super serial dissection of my post started.

But for the record don't let your humour failure stand in the way of that

Do you think that explaining a joke makes it funny?

 dogma wrote:
Do you think that explaining a joke makes it funny?

There was no joke that was explained, nor needed to be explained, just a semi-humourous disclaimer to try and head off any serious posts or nit picking by members of the community like your good self.

If you want to keep this exchange up feel free to PM me instead of diverting the thread and sucking the fun out of it

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 dogma wrote:
Do you think that explaining a joke makes it funny?

There was no joke that was explained, nor needed to be explained, just a semi-humourous disclaimer to try and head off any serious posts or nit picking by members of the community like your good self.

If you want to keep this exchange up feel free to PM me instead of diverting the thread and sucking the fun out of it

Lets just admit it. Dogma doesn't believe in the right to wienerdog guided anti aircraft.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 dogma wrote:
Do you think that explaining a joke makes it funny?

There was no joke that was explained, nor needed to be explained, just a semi-humourous disclaimer to try and head off any serious posts or nit picking by members of the community like your good self.

If you want to keep this exchange up feel free to PM me instead of diverting the thread and sucking the fun out of it

Lets just admit it. Dogma doesn't believe in the right to wienerdog guided anti aircraft.

Like this fella?

 Frazzled wrote:
Lets just admit it. Dogma doesn't believe in the right to wienerdog guided anti aircraft.

Regular, or assault, Weinerdog guided anti-aircraft?

 whembly wrote:
Like this fella?
src="http://www.celebritydachshund.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/wile-e-coyote-dog-costume-1024x688.jpg

The "ACME" on the rocket is what makes it even better

 Frazzled wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 dogma wrote:
Do you think that explaining a joke makes it funny?

There was no joke that was explained, nor needed to be explained, just a semi-humourous disclaimer to try and head off any serious posts or nit picking by members of the community like your good self.

If you want to keep this exchange up feel free to PM me instead of diverting the thread and sucking the fun out of it

Lets just admit it. Dogma doesn't believe in the right to wienerdog guided anti aircraft.

Or maybe people just get tired of every thread in the off-topic section in regards to serious topics becoming overloaded with pictures/references to wiener dogs.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 dogma wrote:
Do you think that explaining a joke makes it funny?

There was no joke that was explained, nor needed to be explained, just a semi-humourous disclaimer to try and head off any serious posts or nit picking by members of the community like your good self.

If you want to keep this exchange up feel free to PM me instead of diverting the thread and sucking the fun out of it

Lets just admit it. Dogma doesn't believe in the right to wienerdog guided anti aircraft.

Or maybe people just get tired of every thread in the off-topic section in regards to serious topics becoming overloaded with pictures/references to wiener dogs.

Obviously you are a cat lover, and probably a PETA member too. Cat lovers will be first against the wall when the revolution comes. Your only hope of being saved from wiener dog rocket forces is repentance. The Great Wienie is merciful.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 dogma wrote:
Do you think that explaining a joke makes it funny?

There was no joke that was explained, nor needed to be explained, just a semi-humourous disclaimer to try and head off any serious posts or nit picking by members of the community like your good self.

If you want to keep this exchange up feel free to PM me instead of diverting the thread and sucking the fun out of it

Lets just admit it. Dogma doesn't believe in the right to wienerdog guided anti aircraft.

Or maybe people just get tired of every thread in the off-topic section in regards to serious topics becoming overloaded with pictures/references to wiener dogs.

I have no tolerance for these people.

On a more serious note, any of you math whizzes out there want to help me figure out what the maximum effective range of a skyward launched shuriken is?

Depends, are you throwing it yourself or do you have a machine? How heavy is the Shuriken?

Hand launched? Maximum effective lateral range what 15 meters (if thrown by a ninja). Figure 12 meters using advanced Frazzled math.

Simple. Train pidgeons to fly into the engines or roters clogging it up with blood.

Nah, just blare this song into the PETA HQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HVsgAWdQX8

 whembly wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 dogma wrote:
Do you think that explaining a joke makes it funny?

There was no joke that was explained, nor needed to be explained, just a semi-humourous disclaimer to try and head off any serious posts or nit picking by members of the community like your good self.

If you want to keep this exchange up feel free to PM me instead of diverting the thread and sucking the fun out of it

Lets just admit it. Dogma doesn't believe in the right to wienerdog guided anti aircraft.

Like this fella?

I love how the dog looks worried.

Then again, that may be because I'm a cat lover

Viva La Feline!

Time to get this thread back on topic, please!

So, could any video PETA collects be used to prosecute hunters/fishermen?

Depends on how the video is obtained. If it, or indeed any type of evidence, is ever obtained illegally it usually gets thrown out.

I remember a case where the Police were tracking down some Growhouses and were using Thermal Cameras to see if a house was glowing warmer than normal. The Judge ruled that using a Thermal Camera was a violation of Privacy and so threw out that evidence.

Given PETAs track record of illegally spying on things such evidence is useless besides putting it on the Internet.

 CptJake wrote:
So, could any video PETA collects be used to prosecute hunters/fishermen?

In theory it could be evidence used by the appropriate agency, or if PETA brought a private suit against the individuals involved. However there are practical problems;
1. If they fly the UAV over private land they may be considered trespassers, and any evidence collected may not be admissible.
2. The flight time for the model they have listed is 20 minutes. That's 20 minutes to get into the air, get over a large expanse of land, get footage, hope that the footage taken shows something that at least gives them ground for complaint
3. Finding trained individuals to pilot the UAV
4. Finding legally trained individuals to watch the tapes and determine if any law was broken
5. Complying with any FAA or other regulation concerning the flying of these UAV
6. The image recording device has capture decent quality images, have a decent battery life, and be lightweight enough so as not to further impede the flight time
7. Liability. If the UAV collides with a person or property PETA could find itself explaining their actions before a court
8. If any action is taken on the basis of evidence collected by their UAVs they can expect subpoenas for all the footage captured, and not just the edited highlights that they may have passed on. That means legal fees, and the possibility that their members will be called upon to testify
9. The big one - their footage has to be ruled as legally admissible.


That list is by no means exhaustive either. So it seems like an awful lot of effort for potentially very little return, other than some publicity which they have already gotten from this news being made public.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:


other than some publicity which they have already gotten from this news being made public.

That seems to be PETA's MO. They don't really seem to actually give a gak about animals, or want to make a difference, they just want attention and to be a pain in everyone's ass.

Also this. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan-j-winograd/peta-kills-puppies-kittens_b_2979220.html

PETA is not a terrorist organization. The practice Militant Hippyism, which I oppose in all of it's forms. Tossing blood on people wearing fur coats, ramming fishing vessels, etc.

 kronk wrote:
PETA is not a terrorist organization. The practice Militant Hippyism, which I oppose in all of it's forms.

QFT, and they don't even do a good job of it.

 kronk wrote:
PETA is not a terrorist organization.

Yet...

They appear to be becoming more and more extreme as the years go by, and they do support some groups that are definitly terrorists. They may cross the line someday, and are currently walking it.

I put them in the same category as Greenpeace.

I would also label them as Terrorists, going around threatening the lives of people just trying to feed their families.

Is Greenpeace still active?

Yeah, but they arn't as high profile at the moment.

 Grey Templar wrote:
I remember a case where the Police were tracking down some Growhouses and were using Thermal Cameras to see if a house was glowing warmer than normal. The Judge ruled that using a Thermal Camera was a violation of Privacy and so threw out that evidence..

To clarify your comment a little, the ruling was that thermal penetration constitutes a search (and yes, the evidence was tossed). However, the police can absolutely do this legally, they just are required to obtain a warrant as they would with any other search.