wwatkins | 210 Points | Submitted 2012-12-06 23:44:00
This is the look of confusion we all had on our faces after the initial sweet-taste of aspartame turned into an other-worldy aftertaste.
wwatkins | 210 Points | Submitted 2012-12-06 22:00:30
wwatkins | 321 Points | Submitted 2012-12-06 00:22:34
No, he just failed to dematerialize on the planet while simultaneously materializing on the ship. Same universe/dimension. One of my favorite episodes!
It's on Netflix, check it out!
wwatkins | 210 Points | Submitted 2012-12-05 23:59:35 (Edited)
Thanks! Wow that was an epic journey for almost no payoff. (look a the time stamps...)
wwatkins | 432 Points | Submitted 2012-04-09 17:53:23
Maybe that's his jumpin' leg...
wwatkins | 432 Points | Submitted 2012-04-09 14:01:31
The movie Speed in real life?
wwatkins | 321 Points | Submitted 2012-04-09 14:00:05
One transporter problem that I recall resulted in an officer (Commander Riker) being left on the planet while also materializing on the ship.
The one left behind thought they abandoned him, and he was there alone for years before being discovered.
That's the only one I can think of, haven't seen all of the original series though.
wwatkins | 321 Points | Submitted 2012-04-05 13:15:22
Hells to the what??
wwatkins | 210 Points | Submitted 2012-04-05 13:13:41
Perpetuating that stereotype that men are retarded bacon munching lard asses.
wwatkins | -2-3-4 Points | Submitted 2012-04-04 13:02:12 (Edited)
In Star Trek fiction, you don't actually move upward toward the ceiling like that. "Beam me up" is a bit misleading. You get dematerialized where you are standing (or sitting, I suppose) and then reconstructed on the transporter pad on the ship.
Remember them fading out with the glitter-water effect? No upward motion.
Haha. Funny though.
wwatkins | 765 Points | Submitted 2012-04-04 12:47:52
What was the origin of this, does anyone know? Amazing that every kid knew about it before there was an internet.
wwatkins | 210 Points | Submitted 2012-04-02 18:25:44 (Edited)
Yes, I saw that. I recommended reading the whole thing because it shed light on BOTH sides of the issue. They seemed to think it didn't matter for whatever reason; I disagree.
wwatkins | 654 Points | Submitted 2012-04-02 15:30:12
Fun Fact: Hitler didn't shave that way; that was the only place he grew facial hair.*
*(Probably not an actual fact.)
wwatkins | 432 Points | Submitted 2012-04-02 15:23:46
You left off an important adverb.
wwatkins | 210 Points | Submitted 2012-04-02 12:58:21
As I've stated previously, I agree another trial was warranted.
If you read all the facts though, there are a number of other factors that could have possibly been used to get a conviction.
We needed another trial where the original evidence used against him was thrown out. He might have gotten off, who knows.
But nothing PROVED his innocence. (Another person confessed, electrical wiring problems found, etc.) There was demonstrated to be enough cause to throw out his original conviction, yes.
wwatkins | 432 Points | Submitted 2012-03-30 19:24:17
Killing people who kill innocent people though, that's much easier to defend.
wwatkins | 321 Points | Submitted 2012-03-30 19:18:24 (Edited)
And just to clarify, if I seem to be nit-picking; I understood your original post to mean that a man was proven to be innocent and then executed.
"In Texas, a man was found to be innocent.
But they went through with his execution anyway."
It warranted a new trial, and it's criminal that one wasn't granted.
wwatkins | 210 Points | Submitted 2012-03-30 19:02:46 (Edited)
You're right; it isn't. And like I said, I am intellectually opposed to the man's execution.
We have a default-to-innocent legal system because men and their systems are flawed. It's a "better safe than sorry" mentality that we SHOULD have.
We don't know for sure if he was innocent or guilty, but he definitely was not known to be innocent and then executed.
Oh, it can still be arson. Having no evidence of arson does not rule out the possibility of arson.
wwatkins | 210 Points | Submitted 2012-03-30 18:36:53 (Edited)
"No evidence if arson" means they can't prove he did it. It means that the evidence used in the trial should be thrown out.
It does NOT mean he was innocent.
I don't agree with the execution, but just removing part of the evidence that convicted him doesn't automatically make him innocent.
Plus the guy told the fire marshal he came back to the scene and poured flammable cologne on the floor from the bathroom to the children's room because "they loved the smell of it when they were alive". I call that tampering with a crime scene.
wwatkins | 321 Points | Submitted 2012-03-30 17:07:32 (Edited)
Well he wasn't "found to be innocent" and then executed anyway. I knew that sounded too bizarre to be true.
During the final days there was an expert who was refuting evidence in his original trial, which was reviewed and determined by the state not to have much of an impact on the case due to other evidence.
So it was just a debate.
I agree that there was enough cause for doubt that the execution should have been delayed, but this was also a man with an extensive criminal history who acted very strangely at the scene and at subsequent visits.
Not someone who was proven innocent and then executed.
Read the whole Wikipedia article on Cameron Todd Willingham if you haven't, it's interesting.
Jump to the following comments page - 1 2 3 4 5
0 Shelf Score | 0 Posts Shelved
0 Reshelved Posts
340 Comment Score | 97 Comments