timesjoke

This is a lifestyle kind of thing, not a one time hiking trip. My martial arts background includes full contact, empty hand and I have done a couple blunt weapons full contact as well, I don't think I would ever try something like this though. Sounds very disciplined though, I would have great respect for anyone who completed it.

Like they were understanding with the teacher who let the kids name a teddybear muhamid(sp?)? Muslime Countries would never allow outside people come in and change their societies the way their doing in western societies. Everywhere they are getting strong, they are fighting the norms of the society to change it, like the woman asking all non-muslim women to wear veils to avoid being raped by muslim males who migrated into their country. They are even trying to get parts of sharia law enacted in Canada because in Canada, christians and jews are allowed to have family law run by the churches if they want it, muslims are demanding the same right.

Don't the mess created by Sony with their rootkit fiasco, installing copyright software on people's computers without disclosing it. Let's not forget the little gem spouted by Jamie Kellner, in 2002 (he used to be the ceo of turner Broadcasting): He was talking about people who use video recorders to watch television shows later and how they tend to skip the commercials. On the heels of that point of view, Phillips designs a television that disables the ability to change channels or change how loud it is when a commercial is playing, imagine that. I am starting to get the feeling that these entertainment companies see us all as mindless cows, and treating us that way too by taking us to slaughter when we dare to not follow the path they are setting for us like in this story.

If you do, you may want to read this: FOXNews.com - Lawyer: Ripping MP3s Illegal, Grounds for Lawsuit - Science News | Science & Technology | Technology News I don't know about you guys, but to me this is sounding like they are going off the deep end. I can partly understand going after someone who steals music, but to go after them because they took songs they paid for and made them function on their Ipod, that is crazy, what is next?

And have the lowest crime rates in the world on the whole. I have less issues with their having strict, and even deadly standards in their own Countries, I am sure we have beliefs and laws that shock them, my only real issue in general is how once they have some big numbers, they start pushing the local governments to change enough to allow them to do things that are not acceptable prior to their comming there. Rioting, raping, running radical, anti-western schools and "camps". They don't want to "fit in" to the societies they move to, they want to take these new places over, with force if neccessary.

Okay guys, I have been A "Squatter" a bunch of times, but in places I "squat" I like and do repeat business in. I take business lunches at these places and that will end up with us sitting and talking a long time sometimes, and I take women out to dinner at these places as well. My point is that while it may be a tad irritating to deal with a "squatter" their feeling relaxed at your establishment may mean repeat business and word of mouth advertising, two very good things for a business that would like to stay strong for many years to come and not just flash burn for a short time. I understand the desire to service everyone in the fastest, and more efficient time possible, but there is good from these "squatters" as well in the long run. Just to let you know, the biggest tip I ever gave was $200 at my local outback. I brought in a party of 15 and was impressed at how good the waitress took care of us and even though she was very busy, she still took the time to be pleasant and keep all our drinks full. I could not have kept such a good attitude with that much going on if I was her. I have been back several times and always ask to be seated at one of her tables.

Well, I guess it was entertaining, I hope everyone knows this is a comedian who must exagerate things to make a show that attracts an aduience, nothing more. While many big names do contribute to politics and such, more manipulation is going on from outside our borders then inside. Many years ago, when Bill Clinton wanted to be president, the Chineese were behind the times, way behind in thigs like missle technology for example. During that time, there were a lot of scandles involving campaign contributions and foreign Chineese people. After 8 years of Clinton, China makes up the technology gap and their technology is almost identical to our own, and again, Hillary has had several scandles with getting money from Chineese people. Who owns America? I think the Liberals are still holding it up for auction, we need to wait and see who bids the highest, but my prediction is China, if the American people are stupid enough to elect another Clinton into office.

I have never understood the liberal claim that if the honest resist, the criminals will just escalate. On the whole, criminals are cowards, they trend to preying on those that are easy prey. Owning a gun gives you the ability to fight off any attacker, and that will cause cowards like robbers to back off most of the time. In the use of force principle, having a gun is considered to be a type of force, it represents an ability to kill in the hands of it's owner. A crook does not want to face that force if there are other, weaker victims to prey upon especially when you are talking about robberies because the potential payoff for their successful robbery is so low, that the risk/reward factor does not make it worth death, or a murder charge just to steal some jewlery or a television set. For those that simply want to roll over for criminals and be easy victims, I say fine, be the pacifist and allow yourself to be easy victims if you want. This is a free Country and you can decide to do what you want with your belongings. All I am asking is that you do not try and take away my right to defend what is mine, to not demand I let criminals take what they did not earn without a fight.

I was responding to your claim that most scumbags were politicians, please try to stay in context. Common knowledge, but Hugo posted a nice artical on it, 13 percent is about average depending on where you live. If your paying more for things like insurance because some low lifes want to steal insted of getting a job, then yes, you are a victim. If your car is stolen, are you a victim or is it just what you deserve? Of course we are all victims and your attempt to bring in starving people in other Countris just shows you understand how weak your arguement was so you tried to derail the discussion with some bleeding heart liberal garbage. I am immune to that tactic so you may as well give it up. Either my point about us all being victims of crime through things like increased insurance costs is correct or it is not, obviously you know it is correct or you would not have gotten so rediclious with that example. I have no problem with a legal system, but the guy must make it to that point for it to go into effect. Most criminals do not want to go quietly when they are busted, they want to get away. Scum like this who want to get away have a very high possibility to use deadly force to avoid the penalty they are facing. After the guy is under control, sure, I agree with him going through the system, but there must be that measure of control to make the judicial system possible. The point is we cannot pretend to care about the killing of life when we are killing over a million lives every year and accepting that as a good thing. A human being does not just appear one day from nothing, it is a process that must have a long series of steps. Without the fetus, there is no life, so they are connected and the same, life. Besides, out of that 1.4 million abortions, about 350,000 are late term abortions, children who could live outside of the womb if given a chance, so would you call that ended life my friend? It is much more complicated than that but again, the ratio of cops to populace is almost nothing and that is why we have so much crime. If just having a police force was enough, why is crime still out of control. Obviously we are helpless and the only thing cops can do it show up "after" we are victims and help pick up the pieces, they cannot prevent anything. Letting someone get away with the property is not defending it. Clearly the attempt to not have a confrontation was made and the cops could not respond in time to protect the property, so the action was taken to defend property where the police failed. The criminals were dangerious people, even the 911 operator said they would shoot him if he attempted to stop them so when they refused to stop, they were shot. Only the criminals had the chance to avoid this, they could have decided to simply not be criminals, or they could have stopped when busted by the neighbor, but in both cases, they took actions that directly led to their deaths. Why can't you liberals ever hold any responsibility to the criminals? Your wrong on so many levels it is just silly. The artical Hugo posted was great but you can also look at other factors. Country areas where the owners tend to have guns, have almost no robbery calls. Using your assumption, these areas should be close to ww3 being as they are all armed to the teeth, they go hunting and sport shooting and have guns all over their homes, the robbers should be driving down the road in tanks by what your saying but what happens is they move on, move to areas where the people don't have guns and are easy victims.

I'm sorry I was gone for a few days, personal life, Christmas and all that but I want to reply to this So you like them to save your life if you need them to but other then that, they are scum right? Cops are people, just like you, they make mistakes, some have attitudes, some are great and have only the best intentions. Your blanket disreguard and insult for all cops is not right, but I don't expect you to admit that. Oh, there is one other thing, all cops do a job that is dangerious and could cause their death at any moment, all to protect their communities, maybe they deserve better than your giving. It is a tool, like any other tool in life, it helps us. You cannot get to court until you do the investigation, and the investigation can get some assistance with it's direction with tools like this. You could have just asked, as some have to me in pm's here, but I guess this was easier for you. Should I feel honored by your acceptance? What I am saying is the same reguardless of my past jobs, the lie detedtor is a very useful tool that can assist this investigation to go the right direction, but the parents refuse to take the test so that is a kind of admission to me. That is why an experienced investigator will get you off guard first, get you talking about other things and pop the telling question on you when your not waiting for it. Again with your logic claims. You don't like what reality tells us so you make leaps of "logic" to make assumptions you cannot support, I'm sorry but my real life experience of trying to beat these machines tells me that if you have a good operator, these things are as close to 100% as you can ever ask for. Even if we said the number was lower for arguement, what parent would not give their child an 80% chance? As you said, the results are not admissable in court so if their innocent and get found to be telling lies by the machine, nothing changes, these parents are still the focus of the investigation as they have been all along. But, if their innocent and they pass the test, now the investigation can take most of their resources off of that direction and instead spend those resources on looking elsewhere. Any innocent parent who had a missing child and was not involved would give their child the greatest chance of finding them, or their killers. What is the greater chance? What gives the highest percentage? As I already covered, nothing really changes, the parents are considered the killers now, if their not the killers, what gives them the best chance of letting the cops know this? How can they help the investigators feel okay about turning their attention away from the most likely killers in cases like this? Now your just being silly. Nothing is 100%, even DNA evidence has it's limits such as the 80 to 90 percent match on the blood recovered. By your standard, nobody gets investigated for anything in this world because nothing can meet your 100% requirement for accuracy. Sometimes we must use the element of elimination to know what has happened, the parents can mostly eliminate themselves as suspects if they pass a lie detector test but for some reason, they refuse to take one. So, they will remain the prime suspects until a reason comes along to give them cause to look elsewhere. If 98% or even 90% is not reliable to you, what is? Everything is subject to failure, even if it is small so all we can do is gather what information we can and move forward from there. The reason we use tools like this is because sometimes there is no picture of the crime to go on. Sometimes the killer did not bleed all over the place so we can use DNA evidence to place him at the scene. Sometimes we must use things like lied detectors and even gut instinct to take us into directions we cannot go based on the hard evidence. Most crimes are solved by investigators using their skills than are solved by open and shut available evidence from the scene.

The reason it relates is because from our humble beginnings, we were designed to have certain rights, and one of those rights was to defend our lives, our liberty, and our property. Most liberals now want to completely remove our right to defend our property. Most of them completely ignore the fact that only the criminal has the choice to conduct the criminal act, everyone else is reacting to that criminals decision.

A very good point. What people can imagine is much worse then what really happened in most cases, their imaginations run away with them. While I feel very comfortable with a scenario where they accidently killed their child, I have always said that all we know for sure is they are guilty of child endangerment that resulted in the death of their child. They could help to remove themselves from the suspect list by simply doing things like take the lie detector tests, by first agreeing to then changing their minds after they got this high power lawyer, they have made themselves look even more guilty. Why do they need a lawyer who is known for keeping guilty people from being extradited? Why do innocent people concern themselves with that or even getting a lawyer that costs more then most? Why is everythign about them and their problems? If I was on a jury and knew the parents were acting this way, I know I would remember it. I would not convict based on that, but it would be pieces of the puzzle for me to consider to be sure.

And what average person will have his lawyer and the time to disect each situation to see if he conforms to a convoluted law to allow him to take action? You dodging my points about a legitamate fear of life if you stop a robber in the act is telling. In my opinion, this is the first law written in 40 years that took into consideration the average man's situation and understanding of the law when it was written. Hell, you can't even do the most simple every day thing at a courthouse without spending a couple thousand on a lawyer to do it for you. Our court system was never intended to be so complicated. Each case was supposed to be considered on it's own merrits and decided based on many factors, including what was best for the community. A good example for this was the old west, stealing a horse in the east would get you sometimes very light punnishment but the same crime in the old west was punnishable by death. Why the disparity? Because of the impact of the action being more severe in that area.

I will comment on this, I believe we agree on most of the rest, at least close enough to not worry about it. I can see if you have never been formally questioned and tested on the machine how you may belive this is true, but a good operator will know your emotional and take steps to calm you down. Like Snaf said, they many times will show you the questions ahead of time so there is no surprises and will extend the "warm up" longer if you need it to settle down. Many times, people are asked to schedule again if the person cannot settle down because a real professional will not conduct the test under this situation. Most of the negative studies showing some concern for the accuracy of this system are both based on older machines, not the newer computer controlled ones, and are counting "undertimed" results as failures. Sometimes a test cannot be decided, either from the person being too emotional like your talking about or for other reasons, the operator simply calls it undetermined and stopps the test. Those against lie detectors count that as a failure to work, so it brings down the accuracy numbers in a false way. So, I hope this answers your concern about being very emotional bothering the test, because again, a good and experienced operator will not allow this to proceed if that is the case.

In this case, a citizen attempted to stop a crime, the police could not respond fast enough to stop the crime so if the crime was to be stopped, the citizen had to do it. The point you are completely missing is based on this law, there is no requirement to call the police, the guy could have just shot the criminals and be done with it but instead, the citizen did everything he could to let the police step in and stop these criminals. Or maybe you are just dodging responsibility for what you said. You are the one communicating your points, if your not communicating correctly for me to understand what your trying to say, maybe you should be a little more clear. You don't seem to be having any problems understanding my points because I am sure to say what I mean and leave nothing to ambiguity. Sometimes I wonder why so many people need everything spelled out for them. Ok, you have burgler, most states have between 6 to 15 years for the penalty of robbing a persons house. Most robbers when busted get connected to dozzens of cases, so he is looking at between 20 and 60 years in prison if you successfully catch him in the act. Do you think he will come quietly or resist if the chance appears? Every arrest of this nature is a possible fear of life from the criminal. Hell, more troopers in south Florida die from routine traffic stops than any other stop. No, that is real oppression, but you don't see them rioting in the streets either. I say the ability to riot in the streets and "not" be killed by the government is a clear sign of not being oppressed, but hey, that is just me. Okay, I'll post it again being as your playing stupid: Your definately not talking about the helpless victims of robbers with that comment. Does being forced to sit outside and watch illegals walk off with your stuff sound more civilized? Were talking about the real world here, not some liberal daycare center where everyone magically does the right thing without laws or fear of penalties. Okay, here we go with spelling everythign out again. Your complaint was a criminal being killed when he does a crime and the crime would not count as a capital crime in a court room. My reply to that is no matter what is written on paper, criminals die every day trying to get away from crimes that also do not cout as capital crimes. The criminals in this case were ordered to stop, they kept moving and got shot. They were killed for their refusal to stop, not for stealing. Sure, the thing that drew this good neighbor to them was the theft, but as with all the other criminals who die trying to escape responsibility for their actions, they were the only ones who could have decided to not do the crime and none of this discussion would ever happen. Read above, already dealt with. But you won't give it away either is my point. You like your possessions and if someone walked into your home and started picking up your stuff and walking out the door, you would try to stop them, not just make popcorn and watch them. That jury and safe courtroom is not on the street facing death for a seconds hesitation. Criminals just don't give up easily. Sure, once you have the guy secured and he cannot possibly be a threat to anyone, I agree that the court is the best place to handle them, but they cannot protect us, they cannot stop a bullet from killing us if we refuse to be proactive about protecting ourselves. What your talking about is hindsight being 20/20. It is part of it because without the illegal being in the Country in the first place, no crime. Our tax dollars pay for this system. An illegal should not get protections from a legal system he has no right to and never has helped to support. He is outside the system, by living his life outside of the law on purpose, and committing horrible crimes against society, he is basically saying he does not want to be a part of our system. Why should he now be protected by a system he has scorned? Read above concerning being clear on your points. That is because you never directly answer a direct question. I know your smart, and you know if you answer the question honestly, you will contradict yourself so you duck, dodge, make personal attacks, try to change the subject, all sorts of game playing but you never answer the question. When I ased you about citizens arrest, you knew damn well what my purpose behind it was, you refused to answer it the first time ans gave a pathetic dodging answer about one narrow law in one state when you know most states allow citizens arrest for almost any criminal act. If you admitted that this covered the Texas incident and that by trying to stop dangerious felons in the commission of a felony, he is putting himself into life threatening danger. That level of danger would make his being ready to use deadly force makes his action a lot easier to understand. Would you believe stopping two robbers in the act a non-dangerious activity? What level of possible harm may one expect from attempting to stop robbers in the act in your world? If you agree that stopping robbers is dangerious, possibly deadly, then can you agree that it is reasonable for Hero Joe to know it is dangerious? Now comes the sticky part. Joe, as a good citizen, wants to stop a crime he is witnessing, he knows it is dangerious, it could cost him his life to try and stop these criminals, even the 911 operator tells him they will shoot him. At this point, stopping the criminal act is his motivation for taking action, but his reaction to shoot them is not to protect property, but to protect himself from the repercussions from these criminals for stopping them.

Actually if you take the time to truly read everything I said, I clearly gave my opinion that your assertions of never taking the test are based on not truly being in that situation and I believe that if you truly were in this situation and had the 98% chance to put more strength into looking for your child's abductors, you would give your daughter that 98% chance of more attention in the right direction. If you were innocent that is. People always say how much they hate cops but when their behind in on the line, all of a sudden they are who they turn to for help, all of a sudden they like cops, interesting isn't it? What do you want me to do man, you want me to post my old paycheck stubs for while I was a cop or do you want me to post a copy of my training certificats that I have to update every 4 years to stay certified in case I want to return? I was a cop and still do private training and go to the law enforcement shooting competitions every year, I stay involved, so what, being a cop and being in training gives me a lot of exposures on things like this, your just upset because I won't let you get away with your bull concerning things I know more about than you do. I already said the person doing the test is more important than the machine, machines do what they do, this one measures involuntary rections to questions, those reactions tell the maching how much you reacted to certain questions and those reactions are the telling factor. All lies create a reaction, all lies, not just a lie in front of a cop, that is the part you keep skimming over and I refuse to let you get away with. Do you know what it means when you look up and to the right after I ask you a question? Do you know what it means if you look down and to the left? This is a well established scienc, that is only refuted with junk science in the persuit of lawyers to get criminals off for their crimes. It was not biased and I have personal knowledge of trying to beat these machines that clearly tell me that if the machine is in good working order and you have an experienced operator, the test is very accurate. I have never said there was never errors, but the very few errors that do occur is not the fault of the machine itself and is instead the mistake of the operator. That is why some people will have several tests, each from different people when the situation is very sensative, the use of several tests makes the overall results as close to 100% as is possible in this world. I could care less what you say on my experience, obviously my experience in the real world is more powerful than your never being involved in these tests in any way so you want to dismiss my greater experience to make your point. Think what you want, I could care less, but I will not let you get away with making false claims. You said yourself the tests were 98% reliable, why would any loving parent not give their child that 98% chance? Again, I never said they were 100%, but your wanting to dismiss something that is very reliable and accurate based on a 2% number. What things in this life are more reliable than 98%? Especially when we are talking about police investigations. If you can get a 98% chance to assist the direction of an investigation, why would anyone not want that 98% chance? Everythign is a tool, nothing is foolproof, the question is do you sit back and condemn everything that does not meet a 100% rating (that would be everything) or do we take the tools we have and use them as best we can?

But it is a message to the child putting them on right? What are credit cards for in the eyes of a child? They don't know anything about the bills that follows later, all they see is ther parents using them to buy things, so to a child, credit cards are for getting the things you want. So, we tell the child that she does not need a way to buy the things she wants because she can get Santa to get those things, but we put that message on panties. Clearly there is more to a message than the actual words, there is also delivery to consider. If I had "kiss this" on my shirt, it would have one meaning, if I had the same thing on the seat of my pants, the same words would mean a completely different thing. All I am saying is there is a clear second meaning that can come from these things and I support the consumer right to complain and have stuff like this removed from the shelves.

Unless of course she got one of those gifts that keep on giving right? How about Aids? First of all, thanks for the great post Jhonny, I believe we have had some very similar events in our lives. My first wife left our 7 moth old son in his crib and took off with a crack head while I was at work. I did not see her again until our son was 1 -1/2 years old. He is 18 now and has joined the Marines with delayed entry, he will report for basic in May. I hever received even one dollar in support from her and never asked for it. All any parent can do is their best, there is no "perfect" parent because each child's needs are different. There is one thing that is universal though, time, spend as much time as possible with your kids and most of the time, things will work out. I also do not hold grudges but I do sometimes see trends from people and tend to expect things, like Wez, I will say sometimes I party agree with some of what Wez says, but the way everythign is delivered, it is difficult to discuss things under that kind of thing.

And by saying your side is civilized, that implies that any other possition is not civilizied, you know what you were saying, don't play word games now. In your opinion, and I respect your opinion, but you are speaking high and mighty trying to force your opinion on others and talking down your nose at anyone who does not agree with you. Clearly the people and society determine penalties for crimes, you do not have the right to be the worlds commander on legal matters. I am (well was for ten years) a LEO, if a burgler is climbing out a window and I tell him to freeze, he better freeze or I will shoot him, he will have somethign in his hands (he is robbing the place) he had a weapon in my opinion and moved in a threatening way, bang. They dont, they kill them all. The official ones anyway. Yes you did talk about the criminals rights: You know what, I am all broke up about the rights of illegal immegrants that ignore every law of the land to make innocent people victims......not. Again, stopping a criminal from committing a less then capital crime can still lead tword the criminal getting killed, kids on a joy ride die all the time running from cops and never see a courtroom. I will ask the question again: The question is should the average person be allowed to stop criminals from performing criminal acts if they "want" to stop them? Most states still allow for a citizens arrest, in that you can detain a person who you believe has committed a criminal act. If the person resists arrest, what then? Try answering it this time. Sideways by saying your civilized so by comparison, were not. It is called putting your money (in this case your property) where your mouth is, if you believe people have no rights to keep personal possessions safe from criminals, then back that up by putting your possessions at risk first, don't put everyone elses stuff on the line for theft without recourse if you refuse to do it first. Your the one saying that an illegal immegrant robber should not face harsh resistance because he would not see that level of harshness in a courtroom, that is exactly what you said. If were are not allowed to defend what we worked our butts off to earn, what can we defend, oh, that right, you say we can only defend life, everything else should be given away to criminals without resistance.

So now you claim I am uncivilized if I don't agree with you? More personal attacks? You are just like Waz, you cannot support your claims and when people call you on them, you resort to personal attacks. You are siding with criminals, you believe their right to steal overrides a non-criminals right to protect his possessions. And you completely ignore how police kill criminals every day, thousands of times a day when the same criminals resist arrest. They are dying for their refusal to stop when ordered, when police or individuals try to stop their criminal acts. Again, only the criminals have a choice to not allow this situation to ever come up, how about holding them responsible for being criminals. Interesting that these dark ages places have almost no crime while every "modern" society that coddles criminals the way you want to have out of control crime. Every study on programs designed to help the poor criminals have proven that coddling criminals does not work. Only strict punnishment is a deterrent to crime. I love the way you talk of violating a criminals rights, did it occur to you that these criminals were not American citizens? The people they were robbing "were" American citizens and deserved to have someone protect their rights over the criminal desires of illegal criminals? Who protects the victims in your world? Or should innocent people just roll over and take it up the shorts? But you call anyone who does not agree with you names, and that is what proves your possition to be wrong. If you truly believed the robbers deserved to get our possessions without a fight, you would give away all your stuff but instead you want to give away "other" peoples possessions without resistance, I'm sorry but that is simply wrong. Most people cannot replace what is stolen, most robberies are never solved, most people even with insurance only get around 50% of the value of what was stolen from them, and many don' have insurance like renters. Your belief that we should all just go passive and let robbers have our stuff without a fight is damning everyone into poverty just because criminals refuse to be honest, it is their choice and I refuse to make their life easier at my families expense just to fulfill your liberal "protect the poor criminals" stand.

Just a couple numbers to make the point: 63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes 90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes 85% of all children who show behavior disorders come from fatherless homes 80% of rapists with anger problems come from fatherless homes --14 times the average 71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes 75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from fatherless homes 70% of youths in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes 85% of all youths in prison come from fatherless homes Yep, looks like the Athiests have improved society a great deal by removing faith based morals. Whats next?

I completely agree, as with most equipment, it is the operator, not the item itself that has a problem. How many mechanics have messed up a repair on a car? Does that mean all vehicle reparis have problems or just that certain people did not do the repair correctly? I have seen these things in action and been involved in a "myth busters" kind of test on them. Several of us took a week and attempted to "fool" the lie detector. We had no expectation of iminent prison time to worry about but still we could not fool the damn thing as Jhony is trying to say. I even tried the needle in the shoe method where you place a tack under your tow and press down on it to cause yourself pain at irregular times during the test and the guy running the test knew what I was doing after about 10 minutes and searched me to find the tack. Like anything else in this world, a highly trained professional operator makes all the difference in accurately running tests like this. The guy that we were trying to stump was good, he knew all the tricks and accurately determined truth from lie no matter what we tried to do to trip him up. As was already said, they ask you the same questions in different ways and even when you are just playing a part, it is impossible to have yourself under complete control to fool the machine consistantly. I was involved in testing a lie detector test that just used cameras and remote sensors. They focused on general things like posture and specific things like your eyes and pupils. I was very impressed at how accurate this thing was as well. It was based on old school methods of human reactions and also new technology like knowing the person's temperature changes without touching him.

All whores claim their not whores.

Nobody ever said it would, I and others are just saying that if the parents are truly innocent as they "claim" they are, taking the test would allow more energy and resources to be directed in other areas if they take the test and give the investigators a good reason to no longer consider them feasable suspects. I got experience and first hand knowledge, but I will use your own statement against you in this case: Again, why would any caring parent not give their child the 98% chance? I understand your fear of these machines, your a drug user, a criminal, your supposed to be scared of these things, but those of us who have nothing to hide don't share your concern. Obviously these parents have something to hide. But you did make negative comments tword me, you cannot bash him for doing what you do.

Let me ask you a question. Do you come out and tell your young daughter the real reason you don't want her to get involved in sexual intercourse is you don;t want her to be the school slut and forever ruin her life? You don't want her to be a single mother of four from different fathers and alone? Morals are declining and in the distant past, people saw this comming, they saw it and had no idea how to block or stop it so they made stupid crap like this because they had to do "something". Yes, modern morals are in the crapper, we failed to stop it so now what? With decline of religious based morals this is what we get, is this soo much better? Are broken homes and the "booty call" such better things for society than intact families and being very careful about who you had sex with? Just 30 years ago, most marriages lasted at least most of the time to raise your children in a two parent home, now it is very rare to have them last that long or to even see women be concerned with getting married if pregnant to be honest. We kill over 1.4 million unwanted babies every year in just America, being as sex has something to do with making these unwanted babies, maybe a different attitude tword sex could help?????????