The Altera Centauri collection has been brought up to date by Darsnan. It comprises every decent scenario he's been able to find anywhere on the web, going back over 20 years.
25 themes/skins/styles are now available to members. Check the select drop-down at the bottom-left of each page.
Call To Power 2 Cradle 3+ mod in progress: https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/call-to-power-2/ctp2-creation/9437883-making-cradle-3-fully-compatible-with-the-apolyton-edition
Originally posted by Oncle Boris
You're right that it's run-of-the-mill abuse, however since the girl gave consent before she actually took the drug I don't see how the argument in your first paragraph could apply.
You're right that it's run-of-the-mill abuse, however since the girl gave consent before she actually took the drug I don't see how the argument in your first paragraph could apply.
I was thinking the same thing. I didn't notice anything that indicated she was under the influence of anything when she consented here.
You don't get to 300 losses without being a pretty exceptional goaltender.-- Ben Kenobi speaking of Roberto Luongo
Now this is the most crazyest thing I have ever heard.
"All your base are belong to us" -Cats | "You don't leave an enemy at your back. Not if you like living." - Mara Jade | "You know the first rule in combat? ...shoot them before they shoot you." - Faye Valentine
You're right that it's run-of-the-mill abuse, however since the girl gave consent before she actually took the drug I don't see how the argument in your first paragraph could apply.
I hope I'm wrong, but nowhere in the OT is it stated that she took the drug before the adultery. I read it like "you committed adultery and delivered drugs, and therefore you will be punished harder".
Will someone please tell me where I got it wrong
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
The ruling grows out of a case in which a Charlevoix man accused of trading Oxycontin pills for the sexual favors of a cocktail waitress was charged under an obscure provision of Michigan's criminal law.
It's pretty clear she agreed to have sex with him in exchange for the perscription pills.
Um, as odd as it is for me to agree with oerdin, Kuci you're failing to read this properly.
Criminal Sexual Conduct 1 is not "assault", and does not necessarily require 'rape' per se. Thus was the point of the Michigan AG appealing. CSC1 kicks in with ANY felony coupled with sexual activity (as the law is written). The AG is not, in any way, implying there is a lack of consent or informed consent. According to the ruling, completely consensual sex that is coupled with a felony is CSC1. It's similar to many states that hold that murder while committing any felony is First Degree Murder regardless of intent or premeditation.
Now couple that with the fact that Adultery is a felony in Michigan - which is the real insanity here, although CSC1 kicking in with a felony is sort of odd - and you have adultery meeting the standards of CSC1 (though you could probably argue double jeopardy with charging someone twice for identical acts, but I think they could just charge with CSC1 and require a finding of adultery but not an actual charge; but a real lawyer would have to vet that).
<Reverend> IRC is just multiplayer notepad.
I like your SNOOPY POSTER! - While you Wait quote.
Secondly, that second post about the teacher rings some alarm bells in my head. I have to think that the little sentence about "some of the links being hilighted" [presumably, clicked-link color] indicates that she may have actually chosen to visit these links. Of course, it's possible she clicked on them accidentally while frantically closing the windows, but ... as they say, why not just pull the plug.
What was she doing on a hair dressing website, anyway? And why were ten students looking over her shoulder?
<Reverend> IRC is just multiplayer notepad.
I like your SNOOPY POSTER! - While you Wait quote.
Oerdin I read about that teacher case with the porn from a different unbiased source. CNN I think.
They determined some of the sites visited were sites that you had to actually click on or type in the url, and the teacher made no attempt to unplug the computer or shut it down. She could have also done safe searches etc. The computer could have had anti pop up protections.
You have no problem with an AG zealously pressing a ridiculous charge that it turns out he himself has been guilty of?
I find it depressingly SOP.
I'm familiar with the aftermath of over-zealous prosecution and the plight of the wrongly convicted when bad people or decisions control or guide the machinery.
Originally posted by Dis
Oerdin I read about that teacher case with the porn from a different unbiased source. CNN I think.
They determined some of the sites visited were sites that you had to actually click on or type in the url, and the teacher made no attempt to unplug the computer or shut it down. She could have also done safe searches etc. The computer could have had anti pop up protections.
What the Christ though, just fire the teacher and get it over with. How litigious can you get?
Originally posted by Dis
Oerdin I read about that teacher case with the porn from a different unbiased source. CNN I think.
They determined some of the sites visited were sites that you had to actually click on or type in the url, and the teacher made no attempt to unplug the computer or shut it down. She could have also done safe searches etc. The computer could have had anti pop up protections.
In most schools you can't install anything on a computer without the school's permission. If we're going to be absurd then why not charge the school council for felony child endagerment as well since they didn't install the pop up blockers.
Tweet
Comment