Roadside Memorials, Utah fight
I applaud and support any community that outlaws roadside memorials for ANY reason.
They are pollution.
WTF?!
Ever heard of a
cemetery?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,311956,00.html
I wonder what they would do if a Buddhist or Jewish officer died.
It is a blatant breech of the separation of church and state, the funds, the land they are on, the police seal on the crosses, all of it... and 12' fucking feet tall. Give me a break.
But, all of that is secondary to me... it is just not the place, get a plot and stop littering the highways and byways of our nation with your "grief". It is just litter no matter why you put it there.
Many cities and counties are outlawing it and imposing fines on those erecting these memorials and I applaud them!
PC is a joke.
If you are not offending someone today you aren't saying anything worth hearing.
There are plenty of people here who put up crosses and leave flowers by them regularly for roadside deaths.
I know these roadside crosses have made me rethink the speed I'm doing on many occasions.
I really don't think there's a problem. If the council (local government) thinks they're out of line, they have the right to remove them.
Ibram ... Ka-ZING! :lol:
I'm with Ali regarding the use of memorials as warning signs. In some southern parts of Australia the road authorities put up posts with pictures of tombstones - not crosses - at the site of fatal crashes. Other places use smallish white crosses (2 or 3 feet high). Over time these become useful road hazard warnings. Somebody died right here!.
But a 12-foot high cross? seems a tad excessive.
The separation of church and state has nothing to do with PC or offending anyone.
But I do not expect Ibram to be able to understand that... it requires thought.
It seemed appropriate in relation to your mention of Buddhist or Jewish officers.
I want to know what they'll put up for an atheist. A 12 foot high ... nothing?
I'm interested in the idea that a memorial for a policeman shot and killed during a traffic stop in 1978 would remind speeding drivers to slow down [quotes from attached article]. Surely they would just remind people not to shoot and kill policemen?
I have to say I hate the tattered remains of flowers and faded notes tied to lamp-posts here. As I don't drive at the moment (and have never knowingly broken the speed limit) it didn't occur to me that it might slow other people down. Perhaps it's worth it then - I'd prefer then to keep their grief private though.
In Oz there have been increasing numbers of people killed on the roads. Particularly young people. To me, a few flowers and a few faded notes are a small price to pay even if it saves just one young life. My sensibilities are slightly offended when I see these tributes too, but what do they matter compared to a life?
I used to think they were just 'litter', but there were a couple of events in my life which changed my perspective.
It's a shame these things had to happen for me to value the grief which produced these tributes. My only hope is that others might be wiser than I.
My issue is that I don't think they affect those that cause the accidents in the first place. The majority of "roadside memorials" I've seen that I know anything about (ie read about the accident in the local paper or knew someone who knew the victim) involve young people driving fast or intoxicated*. Usually killing or injuring their friends and/ or oncoming traffic.
These people are already breaking laws and advice given by older, wiser heads. Seems like the flowers only speak to those of us sensible enough to value life.
*Please note I am only talking about those that I have knowledge of, and not suggesting that this applies in all cases.
The separation of church and state has nothing to do with PC or offending anyone.
But I do not expect Ibram to be able to understand that... it requires thought.
Well isn't that mature...
The Utah Highway Patrol Association defends the crosses, which have the Highway Patrol logo on them and have been erected on government land. It says they are secular symbols that both honor the troopers and remind speeding drivers to slow down.
this goes a bit beyond a quiet little roadside shrine like we see around here. the lies about the crosses being secular symbols because they have police insignia adorning them underlies the hypocrisy so common to religious doctrine, as well.
If the families have paid for the crosses, then fine....if the state has? not so much, i think. is the cross the only symbol they could have used? were any of the officers represented non christian?
As long as they would be willing to put up a 6 foot Star of David for a Jewish officer, then I say go ahead. IMO, this is very similar to the memorials in Arlington or any national cemetery. Yes it's a public road but national cemeteries are also public.
Now once they attempt to put up a cross or refuse to erect an appropriate symbol for a fallen Buddhist or Jewish trooper, I will be the first in line to cry foul.
The 'secular symbol' idea is bull***t though, for the reasons stated above.
you having a baby backasswards, rk?
It's "breach"!
The separation of church and state has nothing to do with PC or offending anyone.
But I do not expect Ibram to be able to understand that... it requires thought.
crosses are secular symbols? Of what, barbaric execution methods?
HavenT you ever looked aT an alphabeT before?
They're jusT gianT T's!
"t... t... time to leave?!"
I guess we'll have to take down all those cross looking street signs. Maybe write the street names on the vertical pole and just eliminate the cross bar.
I have no problem with them. But I do think they should consider modifying the crosses for troppers who were shot or for people who had been killed because of someone elses bad deed and allow the offender to be hung on them until dead and allow their bodies to rot on the roadside for all to see. That would be cool.
Ahhh, a bit of old-fashioned crime deterrence eh?
I don't know if it really works, but I recall a story about a chap who was hanged (probably for piracy) and his body strung up somewhere in the Thames estuary. It was there so long it became a navigation point and was marked on maps.
Can anyone confirm, or provide details or corrections?
I'll have a look, but they generally drowned pirates, by chaining them to the Wapping Steps. I seem to remember that they left them there for 3 tides, and if they survived that they were pardoned. Which is just black humour because the steps are fully submerged at each tide.
ETA I was a little off course:
Pirates and thieves also flourished. Pirates would ambush ships coming into the area and also steal outgoing cargoes. If you look opposite you can see the Captain Kidd pub, named after the famous pirate executed at Execution Dock in 1701. Execution Dock was located by the Thames near to this pub and dealt with convicted pirates for over 400 years. Pirates who operated on the seas and abroad would also be tried back in London.
The gallows were located by the Thames so that the tide could wash over the body three times. More notorious pirates, including Kidd, were left to hang in a gibbet, a type of metal cage, to deter other would be criminals.
And further:
Captain Kidd himself was a Scottish ship-owner in New York during the end of the 17th century. After spending some time as a privateer (hunting and capturing pirates) he turned to the trade himself. He was arrested and charged with piracy and executed in 1701 at Execution Dock, Wapping. During the execution the rope broke and he was hanged on the second attempt. Afterwards, his body was left until it had been washed by the traditional three tides. After tarring his corpse was taken to Tilbury Point on the Essex side of the Thames, and hung in chains as a deterrent to other pirates.
If a billboard was places at a prominent intersection stating that _____ number of officers have been killed/____ number of drivers have been killed by drivers that shot them/drunk drivers/drivers that ran red-lights I would have no issue with it.
In no way is stating that this is a breach of church and state an ad hominem argument, it is on topic and accurate.
bravo bullitt. not only did you take the time to snag and post the image... you also waited for it to be situationally appropriate.:rolleyes:
rage - i think you might have missed the point. he was referencing your need to fluff up your argument with a personal insult directed at Ibram.
Too bad it was incorrectly used... would have been funny then.
The signs and where they are place is a breach of church and state and he cannot understand that, both are accurate and logical.
-------------->.<------------
------->Rage's Head<-------
as usual, you've missed it. thanks for playing Who Wants To Be Oblivious? /Regis Philbin/
I did not miss it, it was just incorrect and did not deserve anything else.
Now, for those who have the ability to stay on-topic.
Again, what is wrong with a cemetery? Is that not the appropriate place for mourning the dead if you feel you need a public place to do so?
Want to do more, buy time on television or a billboard.
Public land is not the place.
QUICK! name 5 things that don't get your panties in a twist. we'll wait.
There was no emotion, in any way, in my post.
You are incorrect as usual.
Edit:
I do care about the health of my nation and those who wish to degrade the rules and laws of this nation that make it great only make me wish to enforce that which disables them from doing so.
The more the separation of Church and state degrades and those in power feel that superstition belongs in the public square the worse off this nation is... we went to war with a nation that was not a threat in ANY WAY and we had no business doing so, illegally, because god told our idiot of a president to do it.
He is delusional and should have been impeached on that alone. Hearing voices is a clear indication of insanity and he should have been treated as such.
Placing giant crosses on public land is a clear breech of church and state and that people think that there is something wrong and disrespectful for saying so is ridiculous.
It is simply not the place.
As I stated, buy a billboard, a commercial or, better yet, have your memorial service and cemetery plot like everyone else.
What is your issue with these statements?
You are the one who follows me through the board and cannot stay on topic, cannot directly answer simple questions about the issue.
But, instead, just wants to try to insult me, feebly... which is funny, don't get me wrong, you are a joke and I get it, but not one that is about the topics.
Don't like the thread, directly refute them or stay out.
Got a problem with me personally, post in LJ's whine thread, start your own or PM me like someone with a brain who can discern the place and time for your behavior.
I used to want you to stop stalking me, but now it just gets more pathetic, sadder and funnier as you do it instead of actually posting something worthwhile, starting real threads, doing anything other than amuse me.
Keep dancing clown.
and as usual you have resorted to being a weak imitation of TW.
I applaud and support any community that outlaws roadside memorials for ANY reason.
They are pollution.
The state puts these up, the applicant pays for them. No one seems to mind.
Not a breach, still litter.
and as usual you have resorted to being a weak imitation of TW.
What meaningless drivel.:D
Anyone with half a brain can see that this thread is not worth responding to, because you are such a dimwit, and only a drooling imbicile would post here in this thread, because you obviously can't read.
What we need here is some separation of head from ass, or separation of foot from mouth, or else we're going to need some separation of foot from ass. Eventually we might become confused and engage in some ass-to-mouth. That's what happens when you can't read.
hey, don't knock ass to mouth if you've never tried it!
Anyone with half a brain can see that this thread is not worth responding to...
Yet you did... dance clown dance!:cool:
Not a breach, still litter.
DOT constructed, approved, and installed signs are litter? How so? I thought they were a safe, reasonable alternative to the dangerous memorials constructed out of heavy lumber that don't break away when you hit them at 60mph. They're also removed after a certain duration so they don't become lasting eyesores along the roads.
A curious note on these: not everyone qualifies. If the driver died in a wreck while DUI, they're not eligible.
No, I totally respect those signs - they are tidy and they have a limited lifespan. And let's face it, if you passed more than one of those on a stretch of road I think it really would make you think. They are as much for road safety as as memorial - I especially appreciate that there are conditions like not due to DUI.
This thread needs a sign that is both litter and a breach...by a litter clean up group.
I love the memorial near work. Teenager drove his car into a tree at 100+ mph. Our ambulance was first on scene.
The memorial contains pictures, poetry, seasonal decorations that continue to be updated, and a sock monkey.
Just one problem.
It's on the wrong tree.
Dude plowed into a tree about a half-mile away from the memorial. The one with the big scar on the bark. You can't miss it, but apparently his friends did.
This thread needs a sign that is both litter and a breach...by a litter clean up group.
In no way is that a breach or litter. Any group can adopt a section of highway, they are on equal footing with all other groups and it does not display any religious symbology.
are you really this fucking obtuse?
Wow... so poignant, so on-topic, such a contribution to the board, how fortunate we all are to have you!
Stalker and nothing more, you are worthless here lookout.
Quit fucking calling people stalkers, you big baby. You have a persecution complex.
This board is too fucking small to have stalkers. I read every single active thread in philosophy, current events, and politics, every single day. Just because you post in one then someone else posts in response is NOT stalking. It's arguing with you in all the threads you have in common - which for most of us, is all of them.
The min he stops stalking me from thread to thread I'll stop "fucking calling" him one you moron.
If it was on-topic discussion then that would be a different thing... so pathetic you can't figure that out on your own.
hey bitterrageboy? listen up for just a sec, k?
kitsune's sign wasn't an example of signs waiting for your judgement on whether or not it was "litter" or not. it was a statement about this thread. but, as usual, when it came time for you to actually consider a post not authored by you, you missed the point completely. that is obtuse.
mmmkay?
It's funny that you're just about the only person on this board who complains of being stalked. When you act like a dipshit and go around trying to be all sneaky and sly with your words, you're going to get people's attention and they're going to hold you to what you say. You're better off somewhere else rk.
Again, what is wrong with a cemetery? Is that not the appropriate place for mourning the dead if you feel you need a public place to do so?
Want to do more, buy time on television or a billboard.
Public land is not the place.
So, you're opposed to things like war memorials, say, the Vietnam Veteran's Memorial Wall?
So, you're opposed to things like war memorials, say, the Vietnam Veteran's Memorial Wall?
Not at all, same idea as buying a billboard or commercial, which I suggested earlier... as long as they are
not religious in any way.Who gives a shit? We have the little crosses to dead people on Federal property as well. Every day on the way to work the Army Post has a number of them. The difference being that they put them up themselves to regulate them so they do not appear gaudy (sp?) and all the little white crosses look the same. If it provides someone from the dead persons family comfort who gives a shit? And who gives a shit if someone is offended by it? I certainly don't.
It's funny that you're [COLOR="Red"]just about [/COLOR]the only person on this board who complains of being stalked. When you act like a dipshit and go around trying to be all sneaky and sly with your words, you're going to get people's attention and they're going to hold you to what you say. You're better off somewhere else rk.
More should complain about it, it happens more than most know to several people.
The rest was just a bunch of whining. Don't like my threads... stay out of them bitchy little twat.
Merc, I am against any of them, not just the religious ones, they are litter, a hazard and are misplaced (cemetery).
I see your point and it is well made.
I just disagree.
I also like places like West Palm Beach that limit the size and amount of advertising signage and billboards allowed per square ft of road.
The place looks awesome because of it and guess what?... no memorials, you go to the cemetery for that.
In no way does this infringe on my libertarian values because you cannot do anything on your property that limits the civil rights of another's and placing a giant sign that limits another's view is doing that, just as visual litter does regardless of the reason.
Thanks for the well worded on-topic, logical, post... at least someone can think with their brain around here.
Not at all, same idea as buying a billboard or commercial, which I suggested earlier... as long as they are not religious in any way.
Why can't they be religious? Over 85% of this country believes in some form of religion. Just because it offends you is a rediculous argument. Only those lacking in faith do not "believe" in something. I understand I may be in the minority here on this topic, but I still get my say, - do I not?
Actually I just said it, so I guess I do.
Link to statistic -
http://www.thearda.com/quickstats/qs_28.asp
Why can't they be religious? Over 85% of this country believes in some form of religion. Just because it offends you is a rediculous argument. Only those lacking in faith do not "believe" in something. I understand I may be in the minority here on this topic, but I still get my say, - do I not?
Actually I just said it, so I guess I do.
Link to statistic - http://www.thearda.com/quickstats/qs_28.asp
True, as long as they are not on public land, I have no issue with it.
But, on public land, no breech of separation of church and state.
It protects the religious as well as the state... many ignorant cannot see that.
Those fighting for the separation of Church and state the hardest, and always have, are religious leaders because they know this, like the AU and those opposed to changing the national motto the the current stupidity and adding superstition to our money. All who lead the fight were religious leaders.
It is a founding principle of this nation and needs to be kept, and returned to where needed, in all sectors.
If someone is religious not having the state "validate" it does nothing against them in any way.
could you point to the words "separation of church and state" in the constitution pleased? maybe in the bill of rights? no? certainly it must be there. ok, maybe it just isn't in my copy - i did buy it online and all. so could you point me to the part where it goes on to explain that what the founding father's meant was a complete eradication of any signs of religion in the public eye? no? weird.
Guess you never read the first amendment.
But, then again, you have shown what your reading comprehension skills are like, so it would not matter if you did.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gksp2UXpSyg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mA68TTISRi8Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
you mean this one?
Look... he has to ask, LOL!
i was just checking to see if you had a different translation or something. cuz i've looked and i don't see "separation of church and state" there. i looked again and i still didn't see anything spelling out our need to eradicate any visible sign of religion either.
The very first thing our government states is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".
Yeah, that's not clear.
In Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli, an agreement signed between the United States and the Muslim region of North Africa in 1797 after negotiations concluded by George Washington (the document, which was approved by the Senate, manyh of whom were founding fathers at the time, in accordance with Constitutional law, and then signed by John Adams), it states flatly, "The Government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." signed by John Adams
"This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!" John Adams
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law" -Thomas Jefferson
"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion"
John Adams April 27,1797
“The United States is in no sense founded upon the Christian doctrine.”
–George Washington
.
“It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”
–Thomas Jefferson
.
“I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church."
–Thomas Paine
.
“I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature.”
–Thomas Jefferson
.
“The Bible is not my book, and Christianity is not my religion. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma.”
–Abraham Lincoln
"Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together." -James Madison
As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion...has received various corrupting Changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his Divinity; -Benjamin Franklin
The words "one nation under God" were not added to the Pledge of allegiance until 1953
The words "in God we trust were not consistently added to all money until the 1950s after the McCarthy Era
None of the 85 Federalist Papers written in support of the Constitution reference God, the Bible, religion or Christianity.
James Madison, Jefferson's close friend and political ally, was just as vigorously opposed to religious intrusions into civil affairs as Jefferson was. In 1785, when the Commonwealth of Virginia was considering passage of a bill "establishing a provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion," Madison wrote his famous "Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments" in which he presented fifteen reasons why government should not be come involved in the support of any religion.
The views of Madison and Jefferson prevailed in the Virginia Assembly
"The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries"
"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."
"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." -James Madison fourth president and father of the Constitution
As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion...has received various corrupting Changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his Divinity; tho' it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the Truth with less trouble." He died a month later, and historians consider him, like so many great Americans of his time, to be a Deist, not a Christian.
From: Benjamin Franklin, A Biography in his Own Words
Jesus even said it:
Mark 12:17
And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him.
Matthew 22:21
They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.
Luke 20:25
And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's.
"The most detestable wickedness, the most horrid cruelties, and the greatest miseries that have afflicted the human race have had their origin in this thing called revelation, or revealed religion." -Thomas Paine
The Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution was ratified on December 15, 1791
“Censorship reflects a society’s lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime . . . .” - Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, dissenting Ginzberg v. United States, 383 U.S. 463 (1966)
“The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.” - Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)
“Almost all human beings have an infinite capacity for taking things for granted.” - Aldous Huxley, author of Brave New World
“Men feared witches and burnt women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears.” - U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis (1856-1941), Whitney v. California, 274 U. S. 357 (1927)
“If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person
were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified
in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would
be justified in silencing mankind.”- John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
“He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard
even his enemy from opposition: for if he violates this duty he
establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. ”- Thomas Paine,
Dissertation On First Principles Of Government
Morality is doing what is right no matter what you are told. Religion is doing what you are told no matter what is right.
“God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always, well informed... what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure.”
-- Thomas Jefferson to William S. Smith on Nov. 13, 1787. The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Julian P. Boyd, vol. 12, p. 356 (1955).
"What wrong can there be in telling a downright good lie for a good cause and the advancement of the Christian Church?" --Martin Luther
"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter."
George Washington
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
Author: Voltaire 1694-1778,
French Historian, Writer.
"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all."
Author: Noam Chomsky 1928-,Great American Linguist and Philosopher.
wipe your mouth, there's still a little puke left in the corner.
i didn't say this was a christian nation. or a nation of christians. or jews. or muslims. so most of those quotes don't really help to answer the question i asked. please try again.
... complete eradication of any signs of religion in the public eye? no? weird.
By "in the public eye" do you mean "established by the government"? As far as I've seen, rkzenrage has only called the latter unconstitutional. The former is up to the private entity who owns the property which may be in the public eye. He (and I) may be happy when such an entity discontinues a policy based on the assumption that everyone is Christian, but that is a different issue from Constitutionality.
for the record, i do not want the government involved in my faith. i also don't believe that my faith should be thrust upon you via a government entity.
that being said i've heard that having a cross with an officer's name on it is a breach of "the separation of church and state". i asked what part of the constitution or amendments specifically points out this "separation", once that part is found please explain how a cross that is not paid for or maintained with tax dollars breaches the separation.
i think the crosses are tacky and overdone so i'm not a big fan of them, but how do we get from point A) a family or group of families expresses their grief by putting up a memorial cross on the side of the road, to Point B) The US government is endorsing the Christian faith as the one true faith?
please explain how a cross that is not paid for or maintained with tax dollars breaches the separation.
In the case of the particular cross in Utah that started this thread, it is in fact paid for and maintained with tax dollars. But you're right, your average roadside cross is not.
But those average roadside crosses are typically on public land and thats what rk was bitchin about. Well that was one thing anyway.
Not in PA. I own, and pay taxes on, the land to the center of the road. The government has an easement to use part of my land for public right-of-way, but I still own it.
So you, the land owner, can put a memorial on it?
Sure, as long as the government doesn't deem it a hazard to their right-of-way use. I also have local ordinance considerations, like signage in residential neighborhoods, etc, etc.
Thanks - that's what I thought.
By "in the public eye" do you mean "established by the government"? As far as I've seen, rkzenrage has only called the latter unconstitutional. The former is up to the private entity who owns the property which may be in the public eye. He (and I) may be happy when such an entity discontinues a policy based on the assumption that everyone is Christian, but that is a different issue from Constitutionality.
Public eye? I never mentioned that in any way. I don't care what anyone does on private land with private funds. (though I do agree with signage laws)
I suppose if people have a right to put up memorials, you also have a right to take them down if they're on public land.
Ohh that is an interesting thought to ponder, Ali. I wonder who owns them once they are ... erected.
I guess whoever put the erection there actually owns the erection. There's always something or someone who can spoil a good erection though.
I just knew it - you had to go there didn't ya?
And you came right along with me - not even a 2nd thought
well...it seemed like a good idea at the time
LOL That sentnce has followed most of the dumbest things I've ever done in my life...
mine too. ;)
I wonder if this was one of them? lol Somehow, I don't really think it ranks up there, but you never know what could happen.