Sorry about the partial 411 but just heard ffx cty police setting a checkpoint up somewhere on lee highway... So dont drink and drive. Drive, then drink.

*fairfax county that is...

The 41... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> So dont drink and drive. Drive, then
> drink.


and then drive home?
.
Attachments:

Checkpoints don't usually start until 11pm

Two drivers just bailed at the checkpoint, they are looking for them now.

LOLD Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Two drivers just bailed at the checkpoint, they
> are looking for them now.


Did u catch the location?

duhh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The 41... Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > So dont drink and drive. Drive, then
> > drink.
>
>
> and then drive home?

Yes. That is the only option. Or is it? Oooooh mystery!

There will be check points in Centreville.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/28/2011 09:41PM by Ms ProVallone.

This church?


View Larger Map

That is what I heard.

I was stopped there at the Korean church N bound. Cop was asking me if I had been to the Thunderfest and of course, if I had had anything to drink. Cop looked like he was 15. I must be getting old.

Looks like Thunderfest is at Bull Run Park - ThunderFest, Saturday, May 28, 2011, Bull Run Park, Centreville, VA

How thoughtful of the FCPD to set up a checkpoint for festival patrons on their way back from Bull Run Regional Park.

Apparently they are not big Jackyl fans.

What is that big pit-looking thing a little further west on Lee Hwy from that church?

Always thought it was a gravel pit or quarry of some sort.

It looks like something like that I just didn't know we had any of those.

It's a gravel quarry and VERY deep, like 2000 feet or so.

2000 feet? I don't think so.

Johnny Walker Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It looks like something like that I just didn't
> know we had any of those.

Luck Stone Corp. With all the construction and concrete that was poured in this area over the past 20 years we kinda need a quarry. I've seen it a few times while flying into Dulles, it's a huge, impressive scar on the landscape. I'm sure one day it will be a lake.

BTW, there's no way it's 2,000 feet deep. Probably no more than 3 or 4 hundred deep.

There are a number of quarries all around - most to the west of, say, Centreville however there is another southeast-ish.

North of 50, west of 28:


View Larger Map

Midway between Braddock and 29, west of Chantilly:


View Larger Map

On either side of 29 west of Centreville - the one mentioned in the post above:


View Larger Map

In the middle of Manassas:


View Larger Map

Down 123 south of Fairfax proper:


View Larger Map

Anywho, ya get the idea - they're all around here. The prevailing winds from the west (south or north) bring all that dust right to your living room!.

If you are NOT drunk why would care about a checkpoint?

Joe B. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I was stopped there at the Korean church N bound.
> Cop was asking me if I had been to the Thunderfest
> and of course, if I had had anything to drink.
> Cop looked like he was 15. I must be getting old.

Mam, What were you doing the last couple of hours? What is your bra size and the last time you had sex?

Papers please!

skyhigh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> North of 50, west of 28:

I'm pretty sure this one is on Dulles Airport property. If you zoom in on the circle just east of the quarry, you can see the burned-out aircraft fuselage replica the airport fire and rescue department uses for training:


View Larger Map

http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=qgmxb18j8bjj&lvl=18.894658547388147&dir=355.2731687398391&sty=b&form=LMLTCC

to the drunks Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you are NOT drunk why would care about a
> checkpoint?


Because it's an unnecessary inconvenience to me as a driver acting responsibly and a huge waste of time and resources in general anyways. Seriously, look at the results when they release them. It will be something like 700 motorists stopped and maybe, MAYBE, one arrest for DUI and a couple other tickets. Maybe an arrest on some warrant too. That happens sometimes I think.

to the drunks Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you are NOT drunk why would care about a
> checkpoint?

If you are NOT a frumpy valium-chomping house frau with nothing better to do than criticize others, why would care why we care?

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Johnny Walker Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > It looks like something like that I just didn't
> > know we had any of those.
>
> Luck Stone Corp. With all the construction and
> concrete that was poured in this area over the
> past 20 years we kinda need a quarry. I've seen
> it a few times while flying into Dulles, it's a
> huge, impressive scar on the landscape. I'm sure
> one day it will be a lake.
>
> BTW, there's no way it's 2,000 feet deep.
> Probably no more than 3 or 4 hundred deep.


Luck Stone has bought up a lot of the property around Bull Run Post Office Drive to expand when they need to.

__________________________________
That's not a ladybug, that's a cannapiller.

@ Warhawk: They claim it's not for expansion:

Quote

Why does Luck Stone buy land around the quarry if you're not going to use it for quarrying?
– Neighbor

Great question! We get that one a lot. Occasionally, when it makes sense, Luck Stone will buy land adjacent to our quarries. Typically, we do this to provide buffer between the quarry and nearby residences or to provide for future quarry expansion. At our Fairfax quarry, the land we have purchased across Bull Run Post Office road (see map) is solely intended as buffer. There are no plans to attempt to expand into that area.
– Luck Stone

http://fairfax.luckstone.com/letters.cfm



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/29/2011 02:18PM by Ut videam.

Johnny Walker Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> to the drunks Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > If you are NOT drunk why would care about a
> > checkpoint?
>
>
> Because it's an unnecessary inconvenience to me as
> a driver acting responsibly and a huge waste of
> time and resources in general anyways. Seriously,
> look at the results when they release them. It
> will be something like 700 motorists stopped and
> maybe, MAYBE, one arrest for DUI and a couple
> other tickets. Maybe an arrest on some warrant
> too. That happens sometimes I think.


When police are proactive.. it's a waste of time. However, when they are not proactive and someone gets killed in another DWI accident, then people bitch that the Police are worthless and should have been proactive. With your logic, law enforcement can never come out ahead and make you happy. The stats are low and so are the DWI accidents. The checkpoints are a deterrent, which work. Compare out statistics with other locations and you will understand.

Also, as far as resources - the majority of the checkpoints are staffed by Auxiliaries, which VOLUNTEER their time to the county.

Besides, how much of your time are they REALLY wasting between 11pm-3am? Really.. as much time as we spend sitting in traffic all day long and you're going to bitch about a 5 minute delay at that time in the evening?

GetTheFuckOverIt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Besides, how much of your time are they REALLY
> wasting between 11pm-3am? Really.. as much time
> as we spend sitting in traffic all day long and
> you're going to bitch about a 5 minute delay at
> that time in the evening?

Yep, notice that his first objection to checkpoints is that they're an inconvenience. This is the root issue. Then all the other nonsense (Waste of time!!! Resources!!!) comes after that. It all starts with the "inconvenience". His time is very valuable in the middle of the night. :-)

I would go through 100 checkpoints if it saved someone and kept a drunk off the roads.

Let's pray your family never gets hits by a drunk driver.

What are you doing on the roads at 2AM if you arent drinking? Seriously, what are you doing out that late?

yes Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What are you doing on the roads at 2AM if you
> arent drinking? Seriously, what are you doing out
> that late?


The checkpoint started at 8:30pm last night. The big problem with checkpoints is they are a warrant-less searches of an individual doing nothing wrong. They don't deter drunk drivers. Those people are going to drive regardless of checkpoints. The drunks just simple avoid the checkpoints.

With today's cell phones and txt messaging the only people who go through checkpoints are sober drivers. I bet it took five seconds for the first person at the checkpoint to text or call back to Thunderfest and the rest of the people went around the checkpoint.

yes Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What are you doing on the roads at 2AM if you
> arent drinking? Seriously, what are you doing out
> that late?

Well, believe it or not the world doesn't close when you shut your eyes. Some people work hours other than 9-5; I know, hard to imagine, eh? Dingbat.

U cant be serious Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> yes Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > What are you doing on the roads at 2AM if you
> > arent drinking? Seriously, what are you doing
> out
> > that late?

Night shift monitoring computer servers, night construction crews, monitoring electrical grids, restocking grocery shelves, cleaning crews, security personnel, bakeries (Making the donuts), paper delivery people, 24 hour restaurants and drive thru's, overnight freight workers, etc...

When do you think Fed Ex sorts the packages?

Kilton Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> GetTheFuckOverIt Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > Besides, how much of your time are they REALLY
> > wasting between 11pm-3am? Really.. as much
> time
> > as we spend sitting in traffic all day long and
> > you're going to bitch about a 5 minute delay at
> > that time in the evening?
>
> Yep, notice that his first objection to
> checkpoints is that they're an inconvenience. This
> is the root issue. Then all the other nonsense
> (Waste of time!!! Resources!!!) comes after that.
> It all starts with the "inconvenience". His time
> is very valuable in the middle of the night. :-)


I have no reason to think you would believe this, but I actually used that "inconvenience" argument just because it is a valid argument, although not my personal one. Indeed, I have never in my life been stuck at a DUI checkpoint, so there has never been any personal inconvenience to me at all.

I do also agree that law-abiding people should be allowed to go about their business without being hassled by police in some kind of show they're putting on for people like you who think these are effective. Who cares if it's 1-2 in the morning. Why are they out at that hour? Fuck you! They can be out at that hour if they want doing whatever the hell they want, if they're sober.

There are better, proven methods for catching drunk drivers, and the fact that these checkpoints are put up in the same spots and remain there for hours and hours mean that people who DO drink and drive find out through the grapevine where they are and figure out how to avoid them, or they make a habit of avoiding a route that takes them through those spots generally anyways just in case.

As far as using auxiliary officers, looking at the last one there were 10 of those and 8 real officers. Probably because the auxiliary ones can't make a real arrest (or, in the case of that particular checkpoint, write 5 whole tickets to a few of the 696 motorists stopped) and probably don't have the authority to actually shut down a road.

Those 8 real officers could have been driving around looking for some drunks who can't keep their cars between the lines. I can assure you they were out there, they just didn't come right to them. They tend to be inconvenient like that.

I will add that while this is anecdotal, I have met many, many people who have gotten DUIs in my life and I can think of not a single one that got busted at a checkpoint. Every one of them got busted because they did something stupid in view of a cop out patrolling. That is how you catch them.

Johnny Walker Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I will add that while this is anecdotal, I have
> met many, many people who have gotten DUIs in my
> life and I can think of not a single one that got
> busted at a checkpoint. Every one of them got
> busted because they did something stupid in view
> of a cop out patrolling. That is how you catch
> them.

+1, Usually it is speeding or not obeying some roadside.

The problem with checkpoints and most police interaction is the way they ask questions and intentionally confuse the person in question, like they expect every person they question to have a masters in verbal communications with a specialty in describing every detail of a scene in the 3 sentences they allow you to say before asking contradictory questions about your statement...

I reminisce about the last checkpoint I went through after leaving a "field party" in Clifton some years back.

COP: Where are you coming from?
ME: A field party

So you were trespassing?
ME: No, I was at a friends house.

COP: WELL, which is it? Were you at a house or a field? (Now condescending)
ME: A field at my friends house. (Like the concept was SO foreign to him)

COP: Where are you headed?
Home.

COP: The address listed on your license would make your home in the other direction.
ME: Oh, My girlfriends house.

COP: So, which is it? Yours or your girlfriends house?
ME: What?

COP: Where the party was.
My friends field.

COP: I thought you said it was a house...
ME: It WAS a house, my fiends house. Now we are headed home, er, to my girls house, anyhow.

COP: son, I need you to be truthful with me.
ME: AAAAAGGGGGHHHHH!!!

The point is that I should no be subjected to this barrage of questioning that is asked with the intention of confusing the person being questioned.

Unless I match the description of a fleeing felon, it is not the cops goddamn business where I was, where I'm headed nor what I was doing.

Agreed. The questions about what you were doing all night, where you were at, where you are going and who you were with are a bit much for a DUI checkpoint.

That's like the police department in Detroit that was downloading peoples cellphone information at roadblocks to see if they had been texting.

Quote

Sobriety Checkpoint Results in Sully Police District

Fairfax County police officers from around the county conducted a sobriety checkpoint to deter and apprehend intoxicated drivers on Friday, May 27 from 8 p.m. until 11 p.m. All motorists were stopped and drivers were checked to assure that their abilities to drive had not been impaired by alcohol or drugs.

Approximately 688 motorists passed through the checkpoint in the northbound lanes of Route 29 near the intersection of Bull Run Post Office Road. One arrest was made for DWI; eight summonses were issued for miscellaneous traffic offenses, and two people were charged with minor criminal offenses.

Ten auxiliary officers and eight police officers participated in this operation.

http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/police/news-releases/2011/053111ckptresultssully.htm

Ut videam Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> One arrest was made for DWI

Excellent. Great work FCPD! One less scumbag on the roads.

Kilton Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Excellent. Great work FCPD! One less scumbag on
> the roads.

Right on cue. :)

Here's the quoteworthy part, Kilton:

Ten auxiliary officers and eight police officers participated in this operation.

That's eight police officers who were tied up at a static location stopping everyone—regardless of probable cause—rather than patrolling the roads looking for drivers exhibiting telltale signs of DWI. Eight police officers who, in all likelihood, could have caught way more than one DWI in three hours had they been doing real police work rather than security theater.

Meanwhile, in all likelihood, one phone call or text at 8:01 pm led to a parade of drunk drivers taking Compton Road to Route 28 on their way home from Bull Run Park.

"Great work FCPD," indeed!

to the drunks Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you are NOT drunk why would care about a
> checkpoint?

Because I have things to do, and the police are stopping me with no cause whatsoever.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, they have court decisions that say they are legit, but I'll always think those are bullshit. If they were stopping everybody who walked down the street to ask the same questions, no judge in the country would allow it.

Why do I care? Because the police are, WITH NO PROBABLE CAUSE OR REASONABLE SUSPICION, detaining me and wasting my time.

Ut videam Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Meanwhile, in all likelihood, one phone call or
> text at 8:01 pm led to a parade of drunk drivers
> taking Compton Road to Route 28 on their way home
> from Bull Run Park.

I like that you give drunk drivers so much credit. One would think they're all geniuses by reading your posts.

These "Drunk Driver Anti-Checkpoint Text Message Clubs" are mostly fantasy. I know there's the one idiot who posts here sometimes bragging about his big network of drunk driver friends. But just based on how much he brags about it you can tell he's exaggerating. Don't fall for it just because on the surface it appears to support your argument, Ut. You're smarter than that.

> "Great work FCPD,"

Concur!

If the cops are going to waste your time, return the favor. If you have the mythical "nothing to worry about," try this script:

COP: "Where are you heading?"
Driver: "Am I legally obligated to answer that question?"

If the cop says you are, ask for the law or legal decision which states you are, and write down the information he gives you.
If the cop says you are not legally obligated to answer, decline to answer.

Ask the cop if he has a business card with his identifying information on it (most do). If not, get his name and/badge number for future reference. Write it down.

Ask them if you are being detained or if you are free to go.

If they ask to search you or your car, tell them you do not consent to searches, but if they obtain a warrant you will honor it.

Be a polite, respectful, complete pain in the ass.

Don't be rude or call them names, just be straightforward and only give them the level of cooperation you are absolutely required to give.

Let the traffic pile up behind you so they can deal with the pissed off people who were stuck behind you.

You have to deal with their stupid shit, they have to deal with yours. Turn about is fair play.

This only applies for "DUI checkpoints" and crap like that. If you are out doing some stupid crap and a cop pulls over, take your punishment like a man, don't be a little bitch.

@ Timewaster - LOVE it!

Timewaster Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If the cops are going to waste your time, return
> the favor. If you have the mythical "nothing to
> worry about," try this script:
>
> COP: "Where are you heading?"
> Driver: "Am I legally obligated to answer that
> question?"
>
> If the cop says you are, ask for the law or legal
> decision which states you are, and write down the
> information he gives you.
> If the cop says you are not legally obligated to
> answer, decline to answer.
>
> Ask the cop if he has a business card with his
> identifying information on it (most do). If not,
> get his name and/badge number for future
> reference. Write it down.
>
> Ask them if you are being detained or if you are
> free to go.
>
> If they ask to search you or your car, tell them
> you do not consent to searches, but if they obtain
> a warrant you will honor it.
>
> Be a polite, respectful, complete pain in the ass.
>
>
> Don't be rude or call them names, just be
> straightforward and only give them the level of
> cooperation you are absolutely required to give.
>
> Let the traffic pile up behind you so they can
> deal with the pissed off people who were stuck
> behind you.
>
> You have to deal with their stupid shit, they have
> to deal with yours. Turn about is fair play.
>
> This only applies for "DUI checkpoints" and crap
> like that. If you are out doing some stupid crap
> and a cop pulls over, take your punishment like a
> man, don't be a little bitch.

This.

Kilton Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I like that you give drunk drivers so much credit.
> One would think they're all geniuses by reading
> your posts.
>
> These "Drunk Driver Anti-Checkpoint Text Message
> Clubs" are mostly fantasy. I know there's the one
> idiot who posts here sometimes bragging about his
> big network of drunk driver friends. But just
> based on how much he brags about it you can tell
> he's exaggerating. Don't fall for it just because
> on the surface it appears to support your
> argument, Ut. You're smarter than that.

In all likelihood, numerous attendees of the event at Bull Run Park that night consumed alcohol.

In all likelihood, some of those attendees who consumed alcohol were family, friends, and/or acquaintances of one another.

In all likelihood, some of those attendees informed said family/friends/acquaintances of the checkpoint, prompting them to take an alternate route and evade detection.

After all, you don't really think there was only one person at that event who overindulged and got behind the wheel that night, do you? You're smarter than that, Kilton.

>
> > "Great work FCPD,"
>
> Concur!

It was sarcasm, Kilton. I thought you were smart enough to detect that. Seems I may have misjudged you.

I was shown the texts from the network of underground texters that send DWI checkpoint locations. It does exist. The guy who had it on his phone wouldn't give me the @twitter account however. The account said it had around 9,000 followers.

Ut videam Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> In all likelihood...
> In all likelihood...
> In all likelihood...

You are the master of likelihoods.

I'm not claiming that absolutely nobody told anyone else about the checkpoint. The discussion is whether or not there are massive networks of habitual drunk drivers who have somehow found each other online (Maybe there's a pro-drunk-driving forum somewhere?) and figured out (In between drinks) how to coordinate themselves into a drunk, massive checkpoint-detecting force.

I don't buy it. The fact that some Twitter account (Which is apparently secret, LOL) exists doesn't mean that anyone is really in the habit of checking it every time they decide to drive drunk.

Ut videam Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > > "Great work FCPD,"
> >
> > Concur!
>
> It was sarcasm, Kilton. I thought you were smart
> enough to detect that. Seems I may have misjudged
> you.

My response was a sarcastic response to your sarcastic response.

I would have thought you were smart enough to detect that. Guess I misjudged you. :-)

Kilton Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm not claiming that absolutely nobody told
> anyone else about the checkpoint. The discussion
> is whether or not there are massive networks of
> habitual drunk drivers who have somehow found each
> other online (Maybe there's a pro-drunk-driving
> forum somewhere?) and figured out (In between
> drinks) how to coordinate themselves into a drunk,
> massive checkpoint-detecting force.
>
> I don't buy it. The fact that some Twitter account
> (Which is apparently secret, LOL) exists doesn't
> mean that anyone is really in the habit of
> checking it every time they decide to drive drunk.


You may not believe it, but a sort-of "network" exists. It's not that coordinated but word gets around through friends, friends of friends, acquaintences who are at the bar and just say "Did you hear about the...," and even staff at some bars will call around to the staff at other bars around them when they hear of one. Hell, even if you know no one at a bar you are at on a Friday or Saturday night and there's a checkpoint in the area, you WILL overhear someone mention it to someone else.

Totally different issue. Obviously there's word of mouth. That's not the discussion. The discussion is Ut's speculative claim that "one phone call or text at 8:01 pm" caused a massive amount of drunk drivers to avoid the checkpoint.

Kilton Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You are the master of likelihoods.

And you're the master of strawmen.

> The discussion
> is whether or not there are massive networks of
> habitual drunk drivers who have somehow found each
> other online (Maybe there's a pro-drunk-driving
> forum somewhere?) and figured out (In between
> drinks) how to coordinate themselves into a drunk,
> massive checkpoint-detecting force.

You're the only one having that discussion. All I said is that people talk.

> I don't buy it. The fact that some Twitter account
> (Which is apparently secret, LOL) exists doesn't
> mean that anyone is really in the habit of
> checking it every time they decide to drive drunk.

Congratulations, you've done a masterful job of knocking down the strawman you set up.

> My response was a sarcastic response to your
> sarcastic response.

No it wasn't. It was more of your typical badge licking. Thanks for playing, though.

Ut videam Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> You're the only one having that discussion. All I
> said is that people talk.

You should read your own posts more carefully. I already quoted you above ("one phone call or text at 8:01 pm").

It's amazing how easy you make this for me. :-)

Kilton Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Totally different issue. Obviously there's word of
> mouth. That's not the discussion. The discussion
> is Ut's speculative claim that "one phone call or
> text at 8:01 pm" caused a massive amount of drunk
> drivers to avoid the checkpoint.


What is your theory for why so few arrests for DUI happen at these checkpoints? You may have mentioned it earlier I don't recall and I'm not going to read the whole thread again, sorry.

Edit: Oh you're arguing that he meant one person sends out the word and everyone gets it from that one guy or group. I don't think he meant that, but it all does start with someone sees it and tells someone else.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/02/2011 02:22PM by Johnny Walker.

Kilton Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You should read your own posts more carefully. I
> already quoted you above ("one phone call or text
> at 8:01 pm").
>
> It's amazing how easy you make this for me. :-)

You're the only one who's impressed, Kilton. Anyone with any sense could detect the literary license in the quoted text ("one phone call or text" ... "parade of drunk drivers"). But we already know you don't have any sense.

Keep trying, though. It's amusing seeing you show yourself for the ninny you are.

Johnny Walker Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> What is your theory for why so few arrests for DUI
> happen at these checkpoints?

Theory is right, since unlike some others I don't claim to know for sure. I would speculate the biggest factor is that a person has to be impaired enough for a cop to notice during a very brief conversation. This can't be a piece of cake, even for a trained officer. This theory would say that some .08's and .09's are making it through the checkpoints without issue.

If they were to test everyone's blood at these checkpoints, there would be more arrests. There would, however, also be some fatalities, as you and JBass would probably have heart attacks. :-)

Ut videam Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Anyone with any sense could detect the literary
> license in the quoted text ("one phone call or
> text" ... "parade of drunk drivers").

Sorry but you don't get to backtrack on what you said (now that I've exposed it to be flawed) by claiming "literary license". LOL. You think you're J. K. Rowling or something?

"Meanwhile, in all likelihood, one phone call or text at 8:01 pm led to a parade of drunk drivers taking Compton Road to Route 28 on their way home from Bull Run Park."

It couldn't be more clear.

BTW Ut, you're almost up to your quota of 20 posts again today. And it's not even 3pm. I guess I shouldn't only be congratulating FCPD -- I should congratulate you as well. :-)

Johnny Walker Wrote:
------------------------------------------------------
> I do also agree that law-abiding people should be
> allowed to go about their business without being
> hassled by police in some kind of show they're
> putting on for people like you who think these are
> effective. Who cares if it's 1-2 in the morning.
> Why are they out at that hour? Fuck you! They can
> be out at that hour if they want doing whatever
> the hell they want, if they're sober.

Exactly. As someone said before, traffic is shit during the day, so why not run your errands at night when there isnt any and traffic lights stay green for a while. You can get around a lot faster at night, except when the police hassle you.

Kilton Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ut videam Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----

> "Meanwhile, in all likelihood, one phone call or
> text at 8:01 pm led to a parade of drunk drivers
> taking Compton Road to Route 28 on their way home
> from Bull Run Park."
>
> It couldn't be more clear.

Do you similarly contend, in your literal interpretation, that there was an actual parade, complete with marching bands, floats, and Shriners driving little tiny motorbikes in intricate patterns?

Or are you willing to accept that portion as figurative while rejecting that the other portion of the exact same sentence was also figurative?

Looks to me like you are selectively interpreting to bolster your position, and being just a little bit intellectually dishonest in the process.

Kilton Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> BTW Ut, you're almost up to your quota of 20 posts
> again today. And it's not even 3pm. I guess I
> shouldn't only be congratulating FCPD -- I should
> congratulate you as well. :-)

Well Kilton, if you didn't spend so much time licking FCPD's jackboots...

> Great work FCPD!

... and counting my posts (see above)...

> Sorry, but you don't get to backtrack on what you
> said (now that I've exposed it to be flawed) by
> claiming "literary license.".

... you'd have more time to correct your posts before you start masturbating to them. :-)

Bullshit Flag Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Looks to me like you are selectively interpreting
> to bolster your position, and being just a little
> bit intellectually dishonest in the process.

Listen dummy. I've been dealing with Ut since you were wearing diapers. I know exactly what he meant. He's trying to be like the politicians he sees on Fox News. Say X, and then when it's shot down by someone more intelligent (that's me), claim that you didn't say X -- you really meant Y.

Then when the more intelligent person (that's me again) proves that you really did say X, you resort to:

Ut videam Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ... you'd have more time to correct your posts
> before you start masturbating to them. :-)

Correcting their grammar. :-)

But he can't even do *that* correctly, as there's no grammatical need for a comma after "sorry" in my sentence above. You see, Ut is living in the past, back when grammar didn't match how people speak. Nowadays grammar is changing to match speech patterns. And when a person speaks, he doesn't pause after the word "sorry" at the beginning of a sentence. So Ut has failed again.

And this is why Ut just can't beat me. He just doesn't have the intellect. Not his fault really -- you're either born with it or you're not. But nonetheless he starts shit with me here on almost a daily basis now, and he just can't win. Inevitably he stops responding after a short while, depressed and confused, vowing to try again with another 20+ posts the next day. But it's the same result again and again. :-(

Kilton, if you really were more intelligent than me, and it were so obvious to impartial observers, would you really need to tell everyone three different times?

Oh, by the way, you failed at grammar AGAIN. It's "Listen, dummy." Grammar doesn't change just because you say so. Your arrogance is matched only by your ignorance.

Now, if you can't see that you've been beaten, I can't help you. And since I have neither the time nor the inclination to try, you'll just have to go back to reading and rereading your posts, getting that Chris Matthews-esque thrill up your leg as you relive your supposed victory here on the great and glorious field of war Fairfax Underground. So "congratulations," Kilton.

By the way, the quotes around "congratulations" convey sarcasm, as you're too dense to detect it unaided. You're welcome.

Ut videam Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Grammar doesn't change just because you say so.

No one said it's because I say so. Ask an editor or English teacher. Grammar is constantly adapting.

The very fact that you've resorted to correcting my grammar in this thread is how I know that you know you've lost. And the best part about it is, you defeated yourself with your own words. All I had to do was quote them. Life is easy. :-)

> And since I have neither the time nor the inclination

This is your best quote yet. You have nothing but time. You're here constantly. Who are you kidding? :-)

Kilton Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is your best quote yet. You have nothing but
> time. You're here constantly. Who are you kidding?
> :-)

Yes, I have plenty of time—but no more for you.

Enjoy your "victory," big guy.

Ut videam Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Enjoy your "victory," big guy.


Meh. You're an easy conquest day in and day out so it's no biggie.

I hope you bring more to the table next time besides grammar checking (LOL).

You don't deserve anything better than grammar checking, Kilton. All you "brought to the table" was your "ability" to deliberately misinterpret what was CLEARLY figurative/hyperbolic language, knock down the straw man that you had thus set up, then declare victory and crow about your supposed intellectual superiority.

So, like I said, enjoy your "victory." Of course it was easy, considering your competitor was one of your own making.

For someone who supposedly "doesn't have time" for me you sure are chatty. :-) (This is, of course, because I was correct earlier when I pointed out that you have nothing but time.)

Like I said, you'd make a perfect politician.

Politician: I declare X!

Someone else: X is fale.

Politician: I didn't declare X! I meant Y! Yeah, that's it!

Kilton Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> For someone who supposedly "doesn't have time" for
> me you sure are chatty. :-) (This is, of course,
> because I was correct earlier when I pointed out
> that you have nothing but time.)

Nice red herring. Goes well with the straw man fallacy you've mastered.


> Like I said, you'd make a perfect politician.
>
> Politician: I declare X!
>
> Someone else: X is fale.
>
> Politician: I didn't declare X! I meant Y! Yeah,
> that's it!

Only an idiot Kilton would steadfastly maintain that "Meanwhile, in all likelihood, one phone call or text at 8:01 pm led to a parade of drunk drivers taking Compton Road to Route 28 on their way home from Bull Run Park" was a declaration of literal fact. Certainly no hyperbole in there... not in the "one phone call or text," not in the exact pinpointing of the time as 8:01 pm, and certainly not in the use of "parade."

Oh, and one more thing... you misspelled "false." :-)

Kilton FALE FAIL.

Ut videam Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Nice red herring.

Not at all. I'm just quoting you directy. I know you don't like when I do that because it exposes you for the dope that you are, but it's so easy that I can't resist. I'll do it again:

Ut videam Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes, I have plenty of time—but no more for you.

But here you are less than 24 hours later starting shit with me again. Fascinating. :-)

"Ut has so much free time, that even when he says he doesn't have time -- he still has time!"

Ut videam Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Oh, and one more thing... you misspelled "false."
> :-)

Good work! I have intentionally started inserting misspelled words into my posts to you to get you going. Can you find the one in this post? :-)

You stink of red herring, Kilton. I'll leave it at that, since your last post (like all your posts, really) contained no real arguments to directy address. :-)

Ut videam Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'll leave it at
> that, since your last post (like all your posts,
> really) contained no real arguments to directy
> address. :-)

English Translation: You've beaten me again, Kilton, so as usual I will stop responding for today and fade into the sunset. But fear not! Tomrrow I shall rise once again -- confident and capable -- to take you on once more in this very thread. I shall one day beat you, Kilton, this I guarantee! The fact that I'm currently 0-for-15 is of no matter! Things can change, Kilton, and one day you will see! I am Ut, I am awesome, and I will find all your spelling errors!

Challenge: Find the spelling error!

Why don't you guys just get a room?

I'll give you one thing, Kilton: you are an expert troll. First it's "You post too much!" Then, when your interlocutor doesn't have time to respond to your nonsense immediately, your refrain becomes "Ah! You can't respond—you're too sad, depressed, and confused because I've pwned you so thoroughly!"

Anyway, enough for now. Maybe I'll see you tomrrow, badge-licker. :-)

Ut videam Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> First it's "You post too much!" Then, when
> your interlocutor doesn't have time to respond to
> your nonsense immediately, your refrain becomes
> "Ah! You can't respond—you're too sad,
> depressed, and confused because I've pwned you so
> thoroughly!"

Nice try but that's not what's happenning at all. Your time-to-respond has nothing to do with anything. I'm simply making fun of your continued responses after you stated twice yesterday that you "don't have time" for me.

I know this is difficult but you're going to have to try and keep up with me. :-)

> Anyway, enough for now. Maybe I'll see you
> tomrrow, badge-licker. :-)

The better question is: Can you maintain last weekend's average of 20 posts per day? That's what everyone wants to know. :-)

And, can you find the spelling error in this post?

Setting one up on Rt. 1 tonight

was there a checkpoint last night in Bull Run park ?