What made you go WTF today?

[coinich]

Last week, the 28-year-old applied to a Donelson art school and said he was told to qualify for financial aid, he should file last year's income taxes -- something he had not done because he said he was exempt.

When Hostetler called the IRS office for advice, he got a surprise.

"She kind of snickers and says, 'According to the Social Security office, you're deceased,'" Hostetler said.

He did some checking, and after looking up his name on public sites linked to the Social Security death index, he found his birth date, Social Security number and birthplace listed. It also lists his death date as August 2009.

Man declared randomly dead, and now he's completely "neutralized"; can't make money, can't go to school, can't do much of anything, apparently. Wonder why the Feds didn't do this to kath ages ago...

http://www.wsmv.com/news/23759997/detail.html?hpt=T2

[Catgrrl]

So, I'm now unemployed. At least until my baby girl is born, then I will be starting my new full-time job as a mommy! This is definitely a weird moment for me....happy yet anxious and will miss my coworkers....

[GGT]

So, I'm now unemployed. At least until my baby girl is born, then I will be starting my new full-time job as a mommy! This is definitely a weird moment for me....happy yet anxious and will miss my coworkers....

They probably envy you. Keep in touch with them, parade your little girl around the work place, meet for lunch. They'll say ahhhh ohhhh and fawn all over her. Christmas will be a blast.

[oldmunchkin]

Some idiot tourist stopped in the middle of the street, right outside my window, this afternoon to ask for directions. He sat there long enough that a semi-type dump truck had to block the intersection for three red lights! All the while, blowing his damned air horn. Tourist didn't even get a ticket, the cop just sat thru three green lights and did NOTHING!

[oldmunchkin]

I just found this. Hell, another right being eroded!

WASHINGTON (AP) - Want to invoke your right to remain silent? You'll have to speak up.
In a narrowly split decision, the Supreme Court's conservative majority expanded its limits on the famous Miranda rights for criminal suspects on Tuesday - over the dissent of new Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who said the ruling turned Americans' rights of protection from police abuse "upside down."
Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion, said a suspect who goes ahead and talks to police after being informed he doesn't have to has waived his right to remain silent. Elena Kagan, who has been nominated by President Barack Obama to join the court, sided with the police as U.S. solicitor general when the case came before the court. She would replace Justice John Paul Stevens, one of the dissenters.
A right to remain silent and a right to a lawyer are at the top of the warnings that police recite to suspects during arrests and interrogations. But Tuesday's majority said that suspects must break their silence and tell police they are going to remain quiet to stop an interrogation, just as they must tell police that they want a lawyer.
This decision means that police can keep shooting questions at a suspect who refuses to talk as long as they want in hopes that the person will crack and give them some information, said Richard Friedman, a University of Michigan law professor.
"It's a little bit less restraint that the officers have to show," Friedman said.
The ruling comes in a case in which a suspect, Van Chester Thompkins, remained mostly silent for a three-hour police interrogation before implicating himself in a Jan. 10, 2000, murder in Southfield, Mich. He appealed his conviction, saying he had invoked his Miranda right to remain silent by remaining silent.
Kennedy, writing the decision for the court's conservatives, said that wasn't enough.
"Thompkins did not say that he wanted to remain silent or that he did not want to talk to police," Kennedy said. "Had he made either of these simple, unambiguous statements, he would have invoked his 'right to cut off questioning.' Here he did neither, so he did not invoke his right to remain silent."
He was joined in the 5-4 opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.
Prosecutors cheered the decision, saying it takes the guesswork out of when police have to stop questioning suspects. "Is it too much to ask for a criminal suspect to say he doesn't want to talk to police?" said Scott Burns, executive director of the National District Attorneys Association.
This is the third time this session that the Supreme Court has placed limits on Miranda rights, which come from a 1966 decision - it involved police questioning of Ernesto Miranda in a rape and kidnapping case in Phoenix - requiring officers to tell suspects they have the right to remain silent and to have a lawyer represent them, even if they can't afford one.
Earlier this term, the high court ruled that a suspect's request for a lawyer is good for only 14 days after the person is released from police custody - the first time the court has placed a time limit on a request for a lawyer - and that police do not have to explicitly tell suspects they have a right to a lawyer during an interrogation.
For Justice Sotomayor, deciding to make suspects speak to have the right to remain silent was a step too far. Sotomayor, the court's newest member, wrote a strongly worded dissent for the court's liberals, saying the majority's decision "turns Miranda upside down."
"Criminal suspects must now unambiguously invoke their right to remain silent - which counterintuitively requires them to speak," she said. "At the same time, suspects will be legally presumed to have waived their rights even if they have given no clear expression of their intent to do so. Those results, in my view, find no basis in Miranda or our subsequent cases and are inconsistent with the fair-trial principles on which those precedents are grounded."
She was joined in her dissent by Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.
Supreme Court nominee Kagan had sided with the police in this case. As solicitor general, she told the Supreme Court that the Constitution "does not require that the police interpret ambiguous statements as invocations of Miranda rights."
"An unambiguous-invocation requirement for the right to remain silent and terminate questioning strikes the appropriate balance between protecting the suspect's rights and permitting valuable police investigation," Kagan said in court papers.
Thompkins was arrested for murder in 2001 and questioned by police for three hours. At the beginning, he was read his Miranda rights and said he understood.
The officers in the room said Thompkins said little during the interrogation, occasionally answering "yes,""no,""I don't know," nodding his head and making eye contact as his responses. But when one of the officers asked him if he prayed for forgiveness for "shooting that boy down," Thompkins said, "Yes."
He was convicted, but on appeal he wanted that statement thrown out because he said he had invoked his Miranda rights by being uncommunicative with the interrogating officers.
The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati agreed and threw out his confession and conviction. The high court reversed that decision.
"In sum, a suspect who has received and understood the Miranda warnings, and has not invoked his Miranda rights, waives the right to remain silent by making an uncoerced statement to police," Kennedy said. "Thompkins did not invoke his right to remain silent and stop the questioning. Understanding his rights in full, he waived his right to remain silent by making a voluntary statement to the police. The police, moreover, were not required to obtain a waiver of Thompkins' right to remain silent before interrogating him."
Sotomayor called that reasoning "a substantial retreat from the protection against compelled self-incrimination that Miranda v. Arizona has long provided during custodial interrogation."
The case is Berghuis v. Thompkins, 08-1470.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100602/D9G2MATG2.html

[Nessus]

Woman jailed for testicle attack

A woman who ripped off her ex-boyfriend's testicle with her bare hands has been sent to prison. Amanda Monti, 24, flew into a rage when Geoffrey Jones, 37, rejected her advances at the end of a house party, Liverpool Crown Court heard.
She pulled off his left testicle and tried to swallow it, before spitting it out. A friend handed it back to Mr Jones saying: "That's yours."
Monti admitted wounding and was jailed for two-and-a-half years.
'Pulled hard'
Sentencing Monti, Judge Charles James said it was "a very serious injury" and that Monti was not acting in self-defence.
The court heard that Mr Jones had ended his long-term but "open relationship" with Monti towards the end of May last year.
The pair remained on good terms and on 30 May she picked him up from a party in Crosby and went back for drinks with friends at Mr Jones's house.
An argument ensued and Mr Jones said there was a struggle between them.
In his statement, Mr Jones said she grabbed his genitals and "pulled hard".

He added: "That caused my underpants to come off and I found I was completely naked and in excruciating pain."
The court heard that a friend saw Monti put Mr Jones's testicle into her mouth and try to swallow it.
She choked and spat it back into her hand before the friend grabbed it and gave it back to Mr Jones. Doctors were unable to re-attach the organ.
In a letter to the court, Monti said she was sorry for what she had done.
She said: "It was never my intention to cause harm to Geoff and the fact that I have caused him injury will live with me forever. I am in no way a violent person."
The letter added: "I have challenged myself to explain what has happened but still I just cannot remember. This has caused much anguish to me and will do for the rest of my life."

I like it a little rough too, but Jesus Christ lady

[Timbuk2]

Just saw that on BBC's 'most shared' section.

The article dates back to Nov 2005, and I recall reading the story years ago, so weird that it's suddenly become a top news item amongst visitors to the site. Again.

[Nessus]

I was looking for a Beeb article on the Belgian shooting and saw that in the very same place Whoops

[Timbuk2]

Yeh that Belgique shooting is a bit odd. Not good.

[Spawnie]

How hard did she pull ffs? To burst the sack and then snap away the ball?

Then try to swallow it?

Also, this should be in the circumcision thread. After all, we know that removing bits of genitalia without consent is fine if its on a man. It might even make him marginally cleaner, so thats a plus.

[Nessus]

<3

[Ominous Gamer]

Sending the CEO of AT&T 2 emails in 2 weeks results in threats of a C&D letter.

So obviously 4chan has flooded this guy, and signed him up for every digital and print publication they could find.

[Catgrrl]

Went to get a library card today, and the guy that helped me looked like Ominous Gamer but with a thin beard thing.

It made me laugh. Maybe I spend too much time browsing the forums.

[Nessus]

The call is coming from inside the house!

[GGT]

This Arizona immigration thing is getting weirder by the day. Now there's a Buy Arizona Week, to off-set the Arizona boycotts. And Arizona is boycotting the boycotters in surrounding states. It's like a tourism stand-off between tourism states.

[aoshi]

Well, I was on a very bad drug trip today. I've never experienced something like that before and don't plan on ever trying again. Still, I guess I don't regret it. I feel changed somehow.

[Draco]

My sister calls me into our study where the desktop computer is, and tells me that she was hearing some foreign music through the speakers, and that it sounded like islander type music..since i've never heard of actual speakers picking up radio waves, i wtf'd..quick google search reveals the answer for those who are interested: http://answers.google.com/answers/th...id/743009.html

[Timbuk2]

Well, I was on a very bad drug trip today. I've never experienced something like that before and don't plan on ever trying again. Still, I guess I don't regret it. I feel changed somehow.

Acid?

I rarely had good trips. Always got paranoid.

[oldmunchkin]

Acid?

I rarely had good trips. Always got paranoid.

And I don't ever remember having a bad one!

[aoshi]

Acid?

I rarely had good trips. Always got paranoid.

Supposedly it was just marijuana, though I didn't know it could cause an experience like what I had so I'm not sure that was all that was in there. Plus it was only my third or fourth time and really only the first time feeling anything like that. I don't think I'm doing it again. I'll stick to what I'm good at, drinking.

[Being]

Supposedly it was just marijuana, though I didn't know it could cause an experience like what I had so I'm not sure that was all that was in there. Plus it was only my third or fourth time and really only the first time feeling anything like that. I don't think I'm doing it again. I'll stick to what I'm good at, drinking.

Probably laced with PCP.

[Ominous Gamer]

never seen a bad trip on pot, even with moldy buds. Have seen some people go through crazy shit on coke.
I'm going to agree it was likely laced.

[aoshi]

I am inclined to agree, but it seemed like I was the only one of the three "freaking out". Of course my two friends are heavy drug users.

[Being]

Elton John sings at Limbaugh’s fourth wedding

[Flixy]

Supposedly it was just marijuana, though I didn't know it could cause an experience like what I had so I'm not sure that was all that was in there. Plus it was only my third or fourth time and really only the first time feeling anything like that. I don't think I'm doing it again. I'll stick to what I'm good at, drinking.

Did it taste/smell a little bit like burning plastic?

[Ominous Gamer]

Why allowing your software to auto shorten your URLs is a bad thing...

Carrotsglazedwithcum

[Illusions]

Recipe preparation time is less than 30 minutes...

[Catgrrl]

NAACP really needs to focus on real problems, not make up silly accusations:
http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?se...les&id=7475737

CULVER CITY, Calif. (KABC) -- A graduation card sold at local stores has been pulled from shelves after a civil rights group raised concerns about the content. The group claims the card's micro-speaker plays a greeting that's racist.

It is a graduation greeting from Hallmark that says, "Hey world, we are officially putting you on notice."

Members of the Los Angeles NAACP did take notice. As characters known as "Hoops" and "Yoyo" banter on, African American leaders hear offensive language.

"And you black holes, you are so ominous. Watch your back," the card vocalizes.

"That was very demeaning to African American women. When it made reference to African American women as whores and at the end, it says 'watch your back,'" said Leon Jenkins of the Los Angeles NAACP.

When Hallmark was reached by phone, they said the card is all a misunderstanding. The card's theme is the solar system and emphasizes the power of the grad to take over the universe, even energy-absorbing black holes.

The card company says the card speaks about the power the grad will wield.

"The intent here is to say that this graduate is not afraid of anything," explained Hallmark spokesman Steve Doyal.

But that's not what some people heard.

"You hear the 'r' in there. 'Whores,' not, 'holes.' The 'r' is in there," said Minnie Hatley of the Los Angeles NAACP.

Hallmark sent Eyewitness News a transcript of what the card says, but Hatley says that the actual audio raises questions.

"It sounds like a group of children laughing and joking about blackness, again," said another NAACP member.

Hallmark is now notifying all of its stores to pull the card. Walgreens and CVS are doing the same.

"In any situation where there is a circumstance that we need to be sensitive to, we try to learn from that experience," said Doyal.

However, NAACP members say they do not want to see the card on store shelves ever again.

You can hear clearly the words "black hole" if you watch the video in the linked article.

Really, how uneducated are you to not know what a black hole is? Also, the card has been around for 3 years! And, its two goofy cartoony characters. Really? This is what people are offended by?

[Ominous Gamer]

Talked to my mom about that a few days ago. She is a Hallmark point rep (stocks the displays in stores). She hasn't gotten a notice yet to pull this card, but Publix is constantly having Hallmark pull cards for the dumbest reasons.

[Knux897]

No offense, but which do you think the more likely?

1. People really are offended by some imaginary reference

2. People are just looking to stir up trouble/maybe make a little money