Day 1 : I have been unsubscribed from aus.tv for 24 hours. all is well but a crosspost wont hurt.
just don't tell me the election results! Like my new home group? Me and Darkie are partying hard..
gonna brush up on some legalese.

Imagine how many people who are pissed try out your little hissy fit
routine.

|-|erc wrote:
Don't worry about being spoiled about the election result because it's
far too close to call. It could be a few weeks before we know who won.
My moneys on Latham.

Don't worry about being spoiled about the election result because it's
far too close to call. It could be a few weeks before we know who
won. My moneys on Latham.

Day 1 : I have been unsubscribed from aus.tv for 24 hours. all is well but
a crosspost wont hurt. just don't tell me the election results!

Like my new home group? Me and Darkie are partying hard.. gonna brush up
on some legalese.

Herc

some dudes blog...

So last night I go to Dairy Queen as the wife demands a Heath bar blizzard. > All is well until I am forced into a parking lot by a Gestapo -- err Police
Officer. Apparently, they had set up a privacy violation -- err --
sobriety checkpoint.

Me: Why am I being detained?
Gestapo: This is a sobriety checkpoint. Have you been drinking tonight?
Me: Yeah, I had 3 glasses of water and a mountain dew ...
Gestapo: But no alcoholic beverages of any kind?
Me: No. Hey, do you have probable cause to detain me and ask me these
types of questions?

Gestapo: This is a sobriety checkpoint, we don't need that. I need your
drivers license, registration and proof of insurance.

Me: What if I refuse to hand them over or do your tests?
Gestapo: We'll arrest you.

Me: For..?
Gestapo: DUI.

Me: Ok, so you'll arrest me for some charge I'm obviously not guilty of
because I won't submit to your tests? What happens when it turns out I'm
not drunk and I blow a zero?

Gestapo: We'll find some other charge that will stick.
Me: Are you threatening me? I want to speak to your supervisor, right now.

Gestapo Leader: Sir, I would advise you to follow our instructions or I
will have you arrested.
Me: For?
Gestapo Leader: This is a DUI checkpoint, If you do not take the DUI test,
we will have you arrested for DUI.

Me: And what if I'm not drunk?
Gestapo Leader: Then you should have no problem taking the tests.

Me: So what you're saying, and I want to make this perfectly clear for my
lawyer and the internal affairs people, is that if I do not surrender my
constitutionally protected rights to privacy and illegal search and
seizure, you will arrest me, and when it is made known that I am NOT drunk,
you will quote find something that will stick end quote?

Gestapo Leader: I...

Me: I'm just trying to make sure I understand the gravity of the situation
because it's very important to know these things when I own you, the JSO
and the city of Jacksonville after the lawsuit I will file.
Gestapo Leader: ..but...
Me: I'm sure you are aware that since you do not have probable cause to
pull me over and detain me, that you any evidence collected, including a
brethalyzer or results from a sobriety test, may not be adminssable in
court due to the fact that it was illegally obtained. You can not violate
my civil rights in collecting evidence. I will submit to your facist tests
at your illegal checkpoint because I dont have time to deal with going to
jail right now.

I get out of the car and hop on one foot for a minute. They tell me I'm
free go to go. I get in the car and while i"m pulling out, I shout:

ZEIG HEIL!

.. and stick my arm out the window.

--
What is the difference between Michael Jack-son and US Government?
MJ stopped enticing and watching boys wanking ~ The Truman

So last night I go to Dairy Queen as the wife demands a Heath bar

I get out of the car and hop on one foot for a minute.

I don't know what you're crowing about, you blokes don't even have a Bill of
Rights, and he would have gotten bashed if he would have talked that way to
an Aussie cop.

Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:

Aussies actually have one in substance; America's exists in name only.

|-|erc wrote:
Methinks you might be a Latham supporter. If so, you won't like the news.

Ummm ... this "dude" seems to be in the USA, not "aus" (as the subject seems
to imply). Dead giveaway: "Dairy Queen". I don't recall ever having seen a
Dairy Queen in Aus (but they're all over the place in Texas). Second dead
giveaway: "parking lot". You blokes call it a "car park".

That question has never been specifically addressed by the U.S. Supreme
Court, but Delaware v. Prouse seems to indicate that as long as ALL traffic
is being stopped and briefly questioned, no 4th Amendment violation occurs.
But RANDOM stops would not be permissible.

And they DO nab a number of people driving on the revoked list, or operating
an uninsured vehicle at such checkpoints.

If you are operating a motor vehicle on a public street, you are obliged to
present such documents to any peace officer upon demand. Or else, he CAN
arrest you.

Now he's pushing it. He has to have probable cause to arrest you for DUI.
And, generally, the automatic revocation of licence for refusal to submit to
a breathalyzer test only applies if you were stopped for suspicion of DUI, or
else he has some other substantive reason to suspect that you have been
drinking [alcohol], e.g., the smell of alcohol on your breath, or slurred
speech, etc.

They'll release you. If they have any sense.

He's blustering.

This clearly seems to go beyond the parameters of Delaware v. Prouse.
Standard cop-speak.

I don't know what you're crowing about, you blokes don't even have a Bill of
Rights, and he would have gotten bashed if he would have talked that way to
an Aussie cop.

Ken Smith wrote:
I don't know what you're crowing about, you blokes don't even have a Bill
of Rights, and he would have gotten bashed if he would have talked that
way to an Aussie cop.
Bollocks! (As usual for Ken Smith.)

Ken Smith wrote:
I don't know what you're crowing about, you blokes don't even have a Bill
of Rights, and he would have gotten bashed if he would have talked that
way to an Aussie cop.
Bollocks! (As usual for Ken Smith.)

Frugal monster wrote

Are you talking to Aussies or Poms?
We don't say "bollocks"
Try and keep up.

Bollocks!
ROTFLM*A*O !!!!!!!!!!
Why, oh, WHY am i not surprised by this slam ??

Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
Are you talking to Aussies or Poms?

We don't say "bollocks"

Try and keep up.

Frugal monster wrote
ROTFLM*A*O !!!!!!!!!!

Why, oh, WHY am i not surprised by this slam ??

SolarChase wrote:
Same reason I'm not.

Frugal monster wrote:
What have the bloody poms got to do with this?
Bollocks you don't.

I doubt that this term has fallen into disuse in the year and a half since I
was last down there.

Ken Smith wrote:
He may also have some of the same problems as you, but yours are much more
apparent.

Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
Translated, Ted got caught out by a true-blue Aussie,

but can't admit that he is wrong.

It's called George W. "My Pet Goat" Bush disease ...

You've been trying to pass yourself off as an Aussie for years on the Net

(http://home.earthlink.net/~19ranger57/TED_AUS.jpg),

but your act won't play where it matters.

Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
As a rule, they don't. I've spent roughly four months Down Under in the
last four years. Haven't heard the term once. Bugger that!

It might still be in use amongst old-timers,

but it might also be that I travel in more sophisticated circles.

Theodore A. Kaldis wrote

Ken Smith wrote:
"Caught out" my arse! Ken Smith is so predictable. Too lazy to do even the
most cursory of research.
Unlike Ken Smith, Ted is not wrong. Here are over 2,000 examples of its
usage just in one newsgroup in the past 5 years alone:
<http://tinyurl.com/4bjgg>

John Kerry has admitted that he wants to deal with the terrorist threat
merely as a law enforcement issue (much as Clinton did).

Unless you want to
see more acts of terrorism against Americans -- domesticlly as well as
overseas -- you had better do your utmost to see to it that Bush wins.

Have not.
That picture was taken in Australia. By an Aussie.
I've been mistaken IN AUSTRALIA for a True Blue Aussie more times than I can
count. But everyone down under can make you for a tourist with just one
glance.

Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
It's an ENGLISH word, referring to sheep testicles.

Poms use it, and the Kiwis use it (hardly surprising, given their unique
fascination with sheep), but Aussies don't seem to use it in conversation.

As I said, I don't think I've ever heard it in Aus, and I've logged as much
time as you have.

Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
As a rule, they don't. I've spent roughly four months Down Under in
the last four years. Haven't heard the term once. Bugger that!
Try and keep up.
It might still be in use amongst old-timers, but it might also be
that I travel in more sophisticated circles.

Ken Smith wrote:
It isn't used just for sheep.

Sure they do.

And I'm surprised, frankly, that you've never heard it, given the nature of
your conversation.

"Ken Smith" <forget@it.com> wrote in ...
aussies don't say 'bollocks'. i got the sex pistols album "never mind the bollocks" 15 years
ago when I was 15 and spent ages finding out what it means. never heard it since either.

bollocks hey!
Herc

aussies don't say 'bollocks'. i got the sex pistols album "never mind the bollocks" 15 years
ago when I was 15 and spent ages finding out what it means. never heard it since either.

|-|erc wrote:
Sex Pistols?! That's it. It must be a GAY Aussie thing, as our Ted
is known in some circles as the "Darling of Darlinghurst," King of the
Glory Holes. ;)
Queens like Teddi tend to focus too much on male genitalia....

Whenever I deal with the truly uncouth -- such as yourself! -- I
speak accordingly. It doesn't bother me overmuch, insofar as I don't
think of words as sacred or profane. But as for you, Teddi, the Epistle
of James waxes eloquent with respect to your utterances....

Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
Whenever I deal with the truly uncouth -- such as yourself! -- I speak
accordingly. It doesn't bother me overmuch, insofar as I don't think of
words as sacred or profane. But as for you, Teddi, the Epistle of James
waxes eloquent with respect to your utterances ...

I hear a rumor that on Mon, 11 Oct 2004 22:37:59 GMT, Ken Smith
<forget@it.com> wrote:

OW! I felt that one. Ted's gotta be crying now.

Kent Wills wrote:
And how, pray, did you "hear" this rumour, given that this is a forum of the
WRITTEN word?

Ted's not crying. Ted recognises and acknowledges his shortcomings.

Ken Smith wrote:
I had suspected that this might go right over Ken's head (given the nature of
his apparent psychological shortcomings).