Dr. Pomade

If I had a sticker that said, "I'm an idiot," I'd neatly stamp it on your forehead, pat you on the back, and say, "Way to go, champ!"

Why is this guy allowed to make new threads?

Okay, gotcha. Thanks.

Yay4me

No.

I'm wearing a helmet right now. You'd be amazed at the g-forces I generate just by typing on the internets with all of my serious business! Okay, just kidding, I'm not really wearing a helmet right now. But, Thorne, I think you totally should wear a helmet. In fact, don't even take it off when you get to the meet and get out of your car. Just walk around and talk to people with it still on. People will probably say things like, "Hey, you still have your helmet on." In response, say, "I know, safety comes first," and then bow low as though you are a samurai. Do this as many times as necessary.

No, the gold mettle, actually. Sorry for the confusion.

http://blogs.tampabay.com/juice/images/2007/10/10/tbddavidhasselhoff101107.jpg Hoff says, "Hey, whoa guys, wasn't me!"

Is it because you're wearing a cloak of invulnerability?

And, instead, enthrall all of you with a magical triple post! TA-DAA!

(LOL, okay I will stop fucking around with you.)

Huh?

I wouldn't make that bet if I were you.

Huh?

Steve?

I'm looking for a laptop to use for simply (1) having an email account and (2) playing poker online, and that's it. How well would your laptop work for doing those two things?

I'm looking for a laptop to use for simply (1) having an email account and (2) playing poker online, and that's it. How well would this laptop work for doing those two things?

Yup, I was sick last week. Cold/flu type thing: watery eyes, sneezing, fatigue, and fever. Unusually, though, I couldn't shake the symptoms even the OTC stuff (e.g., Sudafed, DayQuil, NyQuil) that typically works, and it persisted for a solid four days, which is much longer than usual when it comes to me being sick. (Normally I can shake whatever it is in about 48 hours max and keep the symptoms supressed throughout with OTC goodies.)

Jenn, sorry, I didn't mean to come across as though you didn't understand the issues regarding mitigation; I wrote that stuff more for the others who may have read my response and aren't as informed about mitigating factors and so forth.

This response wins the gold metal.

Huh?

I can completely respect this reply/rationale. I don't think everyone has that opinion, just maybe the most vocal people on this board. Point made, though.

Just so no one is mislead, Thorne is referring to something completely different. There's absolutely no evidence to suggest that this guy in this case was manic. And, even if he was, simply because he was wouldn't necessarily absolve him of responsibility for the criminal acts charged.

Here are my thoughts; again, Cliffs are provided at the end. No, I would not be able to defend that claim, as it is my opinion that there is presently insufficent evidence to support such a claim. Of course, there are plenty of studies that demonstrate an increase in particular symptomatology in association with the initiation of a psychotropic agent. For instance, there is an increased likelihood of seizure in those initiating Wellbutrin, an antidepressant medication. That increased likelihood, while statistically significant, is still clinically unlikely (i.e., while, statistically, you are much more likely to have a seizure when on Wellbutrin than when not on it, even when you are on Wellbutrin it's still highly unlikely that you'll have a seizure). The issue implied here is whether or not the Lexapro had some causal effect in him doing what he did - predatorily murdering, sexually assaulting, and cannibalizing a girl. Regardless of whether or not Lexapro is associated with an increased risk of experiencing sexually explicit, violent fantasies, I can assert with confidence that there is absolutely no evidence to date to definitively support the notion that Lexapro causes irresistible urges to engage in sadistic, sexually assaultive, cannibalistic behaviors. If there were, then I would almost guarantee that his legal team would have entered a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) or perhaps some defense related to diminished capacity (i.e., they would have said, "Jury people, yes, our guy did it, but he really didn't know what he was doing was wrong because he was on this drug - Lexapro - that makes you do crazy things"). Why didn't they do it? Case and point: there is no evidence to support such a claim. What his legal team will now try to do is claim that the Lexapro constitutes a mitigating factor for the purposes of attempting to avoid the death penalty. In short, it works like this: if the defense can prove that there is a mitigating factor present, with a mitigating factor being anything that may have made it more likely for him to have done what he did (regardless of how seemingly insignificant that thing may be or how silly it may seem to you or I), then, by law, he cannot be sentenced to death. So, at this point, his legal team will bring in all manner of experts to testify about all different sorts of things - how he may have had a crappy childhood, how he was on such-and-such medication, how he thinks the color blue makes him look fat, and on and on ad nauseum - in a last ditch effort to convince the jury that he doesn't deserve to die. In my opinion, it won't much matter who they call or what they say: this jury will likely be swift in delivering a death penalty verdict. Cliffs: The Lexapro claim isn't supported by the available evidence, but that won't stop his legal team from asserting it as a mitigating factor. In the end, though, it won't matter, as this guy looks to be on the fast track to the electric chair.

Looks sick, Jamie.