AYONMD-Ideas and Opinions “The brutal truth”

Father knows best, but he was considered brutal with his truth.  Many times his scholarly brother and chums told him he was intimidating, but he just didn’t get it.

For example, his young son stated, “Auntie head butted me [unintended ache] when she hugged me.” Father coolly stated, “That’s just the spinster way;” yet, this was about the one whom in the last sentence he stated, “She’s a dear angel.”

To some folks this made Father a brutal sexist. Yet to him, spinster was without its old-English coloring. It was merely his gestalt for one who happened to be a female with no children, never married or intimate, and the hug was just klutzy.

The same was so when  he was asking about the executive board.  The highly regarded group clearly erred.  He asked, “Do they know what they’re doing?”  Some took it as being rude.  Now Father just says, “I’m just calling a spade, a spade.”

mcgregor vs mayweather?? 50-50 $plit?

If the match happens, neither one, vis-a-vis their respective combat sport, is appealing. Both  mayweather and  professional boxing have greater longevity.   (mayweather has 20 years 49-0 vs mcgregor 9 years 21-3;  Proboxing has been around since early 1900’s vs UFC early 1990’s.)  Perhaps a 50-0 milestone would have some meaning.

Get real, 50-50 is delusion.  The winner gets the lions’ share.

 

50-50 split?

Appeals court backs HPD’s denying man a gun permit (Honolulu Star-Advertiser, May 8 2017, PageA1)


Appeals court backs HPD’s denying man a gun permit
By Nelson Daranciang ndaranciang@staradvertiser.com
Honolulu Star-Advertiser
May 8 2017

A federal appeals court has upheld the Honolulu Police Department’s refusal to grant a firearm permit to a man who was convicted of petty misdemeanor harassment. One of the three judges on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel that ruled Friday…read more…

 

 

§711-1106 Harassment. (1) A person commits the offense of harassment if, with intent to harass, annoy, or alarm any other person, that person:
(a) Strikes, shoves, kicks, or otherwise touches another person in an offensive manner or subjects the other person to offensive physical contact;
(b) Insults, taunts, or challenges another person in a manner likely to provoke an immediate violent response or that would cause the other person to reasonably believe that the actor intends to cause bodily injury to the recipient or another or damage to the property of the recipient or another;
(c) Repeatedly makes telephone calls, facsimile transmissions, or any form of electronic communication as defined in section 711-1111(2), including electronic mail transmissions, without purpose of legitimate communication;
(d) Repeatedly makes a communication anonymously or at an extremely inconvenient hour;
(e) Repeatedly makes communications, after being advised by the person to whom the communication is directed that further communication is unwelcome; or
(f) Makes a communication using offensively coarse language that would cause the recipient to reasonably believe that the actor intends to cause bodily injury to the recipient or another or damage to the property of the recipient or another.
(2) Harassment is a petty misdemeanor. [L 1972, c 9, pt of §1; am L 1973, c 136, §9(b); am L 1992, c 292, §4; am L 1996, c 245, §2; am L 2009, c 90, §1]

INRE: THE STARADVERTISER’S article above titled “Appeals court back’s hpd denying man gun a permit.

STARADVERTISER’S EDITED VERSION OF THE HARASSMENT STATUTE, 711-1106, (above is a much more complete version) OMITS THE BULK OF THE DEFINITION. imho THE OMITTED PART (in green) IS EXACTLY WHAT MAKES HARASSMENT SOMETHING “PETTY.” U.S. CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN AWAY FOR SOMETHING LEGALLY CONSIDERED PETTY.