Can Anyone Explain How Defecation Laws Make Any Sense?

[Gob]

Shall we compare bodies of work?

Interesting, so if someone who has written a "body of work" on say, the Apollo moon missions, states; "the moon is made of green cheese," then obviously no one with any less credentials can challenge that assertion.

What a strange guy you are.

[dales]

Mine went down the loo, quad.

[Andrew D]

Andrew's statement was straight forward, categorical, and crystal clear....

And you lied about what it was.

That's the reason that any of this is happening.

You lied about what I wrote.

If you had not lied about what I wrote, the conversations would have been along the lines of:

"Andrew says that most prosecutors would suborn perjury in the right circumstances. Most prosecutors have not found themselves in those circumstances. That's why Andrew said that prosecutors only rarely suborn perjury. Maybe Andrew is right. Maybe Andrew is full of shit. We can't know the truth about any individual prosecutor until that prosecutor finds her- or himself in those circumstances. And even then, we may well never know. If that prosecutor had the opportunity to suborn perjury and did not, we may well never know that the opportunity was there. If that prosecutor had the opportunity to suborn perjury and did so, we may well never know that he or she did so."

But instead, you chose to lie about what I wrote.

And that's why we are where we are.

Because you lied.

Man up, Lord Jim.

I started a thread by admitting that I cannot prove that John Yoo is guilty of treason. I made a separate thread about it precisely so that my admission would not go unnoticed.

I started a thread by apologizing to Scooter for doing something which I should not have done. I made a separate thread about it precisely so that my apology would not go unnoticed.

Does that make me a great guy? Of course not. If I were a great guy, I would not have made an accusation that I cannot prove, and I would not have done something that I should not have done.

But at least I have the balls -- sorry, ladies, but somehow "I have the ovaries" just doesn't have the same ring to it -- to come out and say that I fucked up.

Where are your balls, Lord Jim?

What you wrote about what I had written was, and remains, false. Do the right thing: Admit it.

Man up.

[BoSoxGal]

You lied in making baseless smears against me, and haven't even hinted at an apology, but have rather, it seems, come back with the intention of making it a habit?

Talk about 'do as I say, not as I do'.

[Lord Jim]

He's also lied repeatedly about my supposed "dishonesty" regarding the distinction between "most prosecutors suborn perjury" and most prosecutors will suborn perjury" even though I responded to this weak attempt to change the subject long ago, and re-posted my response several times. There's no way he could have failed to see it; so obviously he is deliberately lying. And not just lying, but lying in a particularly stupid way, since everyone can see easily see from the response I posted and re-posted that he is lying.

Everytime he reposts this claim, he might as well just post the words, "I, Andrew D am a shameless liar, and I don't care who knows it." since that is the practical effect.

The reason he does it of course, is that he is desperate to try and deflect attention from the actual issues here; namely the fact that he has never, not once, not a single time provided a shred of proof to back up his smearing assertions ofregarding prosecutors and cops; and also the dishonest and unprincipled troll tactics he has churned out in assembly line fashion rather than admit that he can't back up those assertions.

BTW, mega huzzahs are in order for Scooter, who yesterday masterfully deconstructed Andrew's sophistic deflections and rhetorical games, kept focused laser like on the real issue, and exposed him for the increasingly desperate and pathetic prevaricator that he has become. Well done that man.

Apparently Andrew made the judgment call that he would rather look dishonest, stupid, and/or crazy rather than admit to his obvious fuck up. The damage to his reputation obviously counts for far less with him than any potential damage to his oh so fragile ego. Apparently he is so insecure that psychologically he just can't deal with that. (Either that, or all the medications that he's taking have interacted in a way that has shot his judgment and grasp of reality all to hell.)

[Andrew D]

Oh, I have seen it. It just doesn't amount to anything. It does not -- it cannot -- change the facts.

It remains a fact that I did not write that most prosecutors suborn perjury. I did not write that most prosecutors do suborn perjury; I did not write that most prosecutors have suborned perjury.

That is just a fact. A stubborn, pesky fact.

You disagree with what I actually did write. Fine. But why did you feel compelled to twist it into something I did not write?

You have responded to what I actually did write. You could have done that from the beginning. Instead, you chose to twist what I actually did write into something I did not write. And now you blame me for your choice.

Go figure.

[Andrew D]

Can anyone explain how this purported analogy -- the one in the title of this thread -- is in any way apt?

From the beginning, this puported analogy has depended on one's bringing along a piece of equipment to remove the fecal deposit and on one's actually removing it.

What deposit do I make if I go nude in public? What piece of equipment is required for my public nudity? What is it that I must do to safeguard others against the consequences of my public nudity? What are those consequences?

Is the absurdity of the purported analogy becoming clear?

(By the way, the dog crap thing does not add up either: At least in the various places I have lived, it is illegal to let your dog crap on the sidewalk, even if you scoop up the deposit. The gutter? Yes. The grass (if it is not someone else's private property)? But the sidewalk? No.)

It has been acknowledged that a simple poop-scooper may not be enough, depending on the the particular fecal deposit. So now one must bring along not merely a poop-scooper but also proper cleaning supplies. One may safely pressume that those include some sort of cleanser and the equipment necessary to apply, effectuate, and remove that cleanser along with the fecal deposit.

So now we are talking about walking down the street with a jug of some sort of chemical, a mop, a bucket, a wringer, and a supply of clean water. (And maybe more than that.) We are talking about walking down the street equipped to function as one's own personal janitorial service.

And there is the matter of the cleaning chemical. What should it be? At least where I live, if it runs down the gutter, it is going to run into the river. Who is going to ensure that the cleaning chemical is environmentally sound? How is that going to be done? Who is going to pay for that?

Does that sound to anyone here at all analogous?

Does anyone here really think that walking down the street dragging a mop, a bucket, a wringer, some sort of cleaning chemical, and a supply of clean water; obtaining a certification that the cleaning chemical one uses is environmentally sound; and footing the bill for that -- all so that one can take a dump in public -- is rationally comparable to walking down the street naked?

Or is this just another of Lord Jim's "I have no answer, so I'll write something clever in order to divert attention from my inability to answer the question" threads?

[Lord Jim]

And still no one has presented one single good reason for why I should be prohibited from shitting in public on the sidewalk so long as I clean up afterwords...

Why should I suffer because of others' weird phobias?

[Andrew D]

And there's our Lord Jim in perpetual orbit in his own substance-free zone ....

[Andrew D]

By the way, how would Lord Jim know whether or not I have given any reasons?

After all, he claims not to read my postings.

Or he is he full of shit (ha, ha) about that also?

Anyway, in case anyone missed them, here are two:

(1) We cannot practicably ensure that one's cleanup will be adequate.

(2) We cannot practicably ensure that one's method of cleanup will be environmentally sound.

Notice that neither of those considerations applies to public nudity.

Now here is a hypothetical: Suppose that you are walking down the street, and you have a sudden attack of diarrhea. It comes on without warning. You have, at most, thirty seconds until liquid fecal matter spews from your anus, despite your best efforts to the contrary. There is a publicly owned strip of dirt and shrubs right next to you. You look around, you see that no one else is present, so you drop your pants, squat, and let fly. Right then, a police car comes around the corner, and the officer immediately observes you in action.

Should you be thrown in jail for that?

[Rick]

I'm NOT going all the way back to the beginning of this thread, however I might be able to shed some light on why we can't (at least not without the proper paper work [no pun intended]) take a Doogie Howser on a public sidewalk.

CFR Title 40 covers NPDES (National Pollution Discharge Elimination System) permit parameters. These permits are issued for point source discharges. Sidewalks are clearly nonpoint and as such you would have to abtain a waiver (not likely) or abstain from taking a Doogie Howser on the sidewalk.

This permit is controlled by the EPA...

[Lord Jim]

Facist regulations, Keld, completely unjustified.

[Andrew D]

That's an interesting tidbit, keld feldspar. Thanks.

I'm NOT going all the way back to the beginning of this thread ....

Wise choice. This thread's reason for existence is Lord Jim's need to attempt to satirize a position he cannot refute.

[Rick]

Facist regulations, Keld, completely unjustified.

Well then BP should have been allowed to walk away from the Gulf Oil Spill.

Also covered under CFR Title 40...

[Guinevere]

Sigh.

1. Title 40 of the CFR is *all* of EPA's regulatory authority, so it covers far more than the NPDES program (which is a very small part of one media area where EPA has authority). Currently, it is over 30 printed volumes.
2. The NPDES program is based on EPA's authority under the Clean Water Act to regulate navigable waters of the United States. Last I checked, although the definition is quite broad, sidewalks were not "waters of the US."
3. Point sources themselves are also specifically defined. A human anus does not qualify as a point source.
4. Sidewalks are not sources of any kind, point or non-point.

That's enough for now.

[Guinevere]

Facist regulations, Keld, completely unjustified.

I never can remember, are environmentalists pinko commies, or fascists?

[Lord Jim]

The really nice thing about this thread is that if you want to express an opinion supporting the right of people to take a crap on the sidewalk, you don't even have to take the time to write one yourself. All you have to do is go to Andrew's thread (I'm sorry did I say thread? I meant to say two threads) and copy one of his posts extolling the noble virtues of letting people walk around starkers where ever they want, (presumably dripping along the way, as humans are want to do from time to time) and sneering at and belittling those who find this objectionable.

Then just paste it in this thread. You'll find it fits perfectly.

[Andrew D]

Except, of course, for the differences which I have explicitly articulated more than once.

Which Lord Jim would know if he were not such a coward and a hypocrite as to be afraid to read them.

[Rick]

Sigh.

1. Title 40 of the CFR is *all* of EPA's regulatory authority, so it covers far more than the NPDES program (which is a very small part of one media area where EPA has authority). Currently, it is over 30 printed volumes.
2. The NPDES program is based on EPA's authority under the Clean Water Act to regulate navigable waters of the United States. Last I checked, although the definition is quite broad, sidewalks were not "waters of the US."
3. Point sources themselves are also specifically defined. A human anus does not qualify as a point source.
4. Sidewalks are not sources of any kind, point or non-point.

That's enough for now.

True, you gave it more detail although I did mention the Gulf spill, especially the part concerning the Clean Water Act of 1972.

Although navigable waters may be the ultimate destination the general permit covers small household units referred to as ATUs (Aerobic Treatment Units) but any such treatment device that has a discharge that may or may not reach a recieving stream.

The anus is never in consideration, the destination of the Doogie Howser is.

Not arguing though as you have shown elswhere you know more about these things than I ...

[Guinevere]

ATUs are septic systems -- they provide treatment of the discharge before it gets to the final destination (and according to EPA, its secondary treatment). So, more like the small intestine, than like a point source.

And the source is as important as the discharge -- both determine whether there is coverage under the Act and regs, or not.