Stupid Laws part #2

Message boards : Cafe SETI : Stupid Laws part #2
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 . . . 6 · Next

AuthorMessage
Profile zoom3+1=4
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 30 Nov 03
Posts: 65740
Credit: 55,293,173
RAC: 49
United States
Message 883570 - Posted: 8 Apr 2009, 23:19:18 UTC - in response to Message 883565.  

This Stupid law is really out there

Dogs must have a permit signed by the mayor in order to congregate in groups of three or more on private property in Oklahoma.

Now that must have been written by a real lunatic. Definitely a Stupid law alright.


I don't know when that law was enacted, but it makes sense if it was to stop organized dog fights.



Ok, In that context It sounds reasonably plausible.
The T1 Trust, PRR T1 Class 4-4-4-4 #5550, 1 of America's First HST's
ID: 883570 · Report as offensive
Profile Xen
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Jul 00
Posts: 86
Credit: 2,846,236
RAC: 0
United States
Message 886049 - Posted: 17 Apr 2009, 6:42:13 UTC - in response to Message 882954.  

In Denver, I break the law every week...

It's against the law to drive a black car on Sunday.

Shhhhhhhh...


I have read also that it is against the law in Colorado to collect rainwater for use!?

True or not?


I wouldn't have believed it, but I guess...

But according to the state of Colorado, the rain that falls on Holstrom's property is not hers to keep. It should be allowed to fall to the ground and flow unimpeded into surrounding creeks and streams, the law states, to become the property of farmers, ranchers, developers and water agencies that have bought the rights to those waterways



In the west in general the water on your land is not yours.

Thankfully the Air is Free still.



For now LOL
Nobody is nobody. Everyone has something to offer
ID: 886049 · Report as offensive
Profile Matthew Love
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Sep 99
Posts: 7763
Credit: 879,151
RAC: 0
United States
Message 886083 - Posted: 17 Apr 2009, 15:50:58 UTC

Kansas Crazy Law

The state game rule prohibits the use of mules to hunt ducks.

LETS BEGIN IN 2010
ID: 886083 · Report as offensive
Profile Matthew Love
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Sep 99
Posts: 7763
Credit: 879,151
RAC: 0
United States
Message 887446 - Posted: 23 Apr 2009, 0:58:02 UTC

Alaska:
It is illegal to push a live moose out of a moving airplane.

LETS BEGIN IN 2010
ID: 887446 · Report as offensive
Profile Bill Walker
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 4 Sep 99
Posts: 3868
Credit: 2,697,267
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 888029 - Posted: 24 Apr 2009, 20:58:16 UTC - in response to Message 887446.  

Alaska:
It is illegal to push a live moose out of a moving airplane.


But what about a hovering helicopter?

Sorry, hanging out too much with lawyers.

ID: 888029 · Report as offensive
John McLeod VII
Volunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 15 Jul 99
Posts: 24806
Credit: 790,712
RAC: 0
United States
Message 888091 - Posted: 24 Apr 2009, 23:36:16 UTC - in response to Message 888029.  

Alaska:
It is illegal to push a live moose out of a moving airplane.


But what about a hovering helicopter?

Sorry, hanging out too much with lawyers.

WAY too much.


BOINC WIKI
ID: 888091 · Report as offensive
Profile Matthew Love
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Sep 99
Posts: 7763
Credit: 879,151
RAC: 0
United States
Message 888108 - Posted: 25 Apr 2009, 0:21:40 UTC

In Florida, if an elephant is left tied to a parking meter, the parking fee has to be paid just as it would for a vehicle

LETS BEGIN IN 2010
ID: 888108 · Report as offensive
Profile Matthew Love
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Sep 99
Posts: 7763
Credit: 879,151
RAC: 0
United States
Message 888109 - Posted: 25 Apr 2009, 0:22:32 UTC

In fire-sensitive Chicago, it is against the law to eat in an establishment that is on fire.

LETS BEGIN IN 2010
ID: 888109 · Report as offensive
John McLeod VII
Volunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 15 Jul 99
Posts: 24806
Credit: 790,712
RAC: 0
United States
Message 888111 - Posted: 25 Apr 2009, 0:24:13 UTC - in response to Message 888109.  

In fire-sensitive Chicago, it is against the law to eat in an establishment that is on fire.

Ridiculous that it had to be made into law. Would you stay eating in a restaurant that was on fire? I certainly would not.


BOINC WIKI
ID: 888111 · Report as offensive
Profile Matthew Love
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Sep 99
Posts: 7763
Credit: 879,151
RAC: 0
United States
Message 888115 - Posted: 25 Apr 2009, 0:31:21 UTC - in response to Message 888111.  

In fire-sensitive Chicago, it is against the law to eat in an establishment that is on fire.

Ridiculous that it had to be made into law. Would you stay eating in a restaurant that was on fire? I certainly would not.


Well someone must have stayed while the fire was raging LOL


LETS BEGIN IN 2010
ID: 888115 · Report as offensive
Profile Matthew Love
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Sep 99
Posts: 7763
Credit: 879,151
RAC: 0
United States
Message 888116 - Posted: 25 Apr 2009, 0:32:00 UTC

In Owensboro, Kentucky, it is illegal for a woman to buy a new hat without her husband trying it on first.

LETS BEGIN IN 2010
ID: 888116 · Report as offensive
Profile Labbie
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 19 Jun 06
Posts: 4083
Credit: 5,930,102
RAC: 0
United States
Message 888131 - Posted: 25 Apr 2009, 1:22:41 UTC - in response to Message 888115.  

In fire-sensitive Chicago, it is against the law to eat in an establishment that is on fire.

Ridiculous that it had to be made into law. Would you stay eating in a restaurant that was on fire? I certainly would not.


Well someone must have stayed while the fire was raging LOL


You gotta wonder if the people that stayed were the Fire Department. ;)


Calm Chaos Forum...Join Calm Chaos Now
ID: 888131 · Report as offensive
Profile zoom3+1=4
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 30 Nov 03
Posts: 65740
Credit: 55,293,173
RAC: 49
United States
Message 888132 - Posted: 25 Apr 2009, 1:23:15 UTC - in response to Message 888115.  

In fire-sensitive Chicago, it is against the law to eat in an establishment that is on fire.

Ridiculous that it had to be made into law. Would you stay eating in a restaurant that was on fire? I certainly would not.


Well someone must have stayed while the fire was raging LOL

Probably, But question is, Did the person in question pay the piper?
The T1 Trust, PRR T1 Class 4-4-4-4 #5550, 1 of America's First HST's
ID: 888132 · Report as offensive
Profile zoom3+1=4
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 30 Nov 03
Posts: 65740
Credit: 55,293,173
RAC: 49
United States
Message 888133 - Posted: 25 Apr 2009, 1:23:55 UTC - in response to Message 888131.  

In fire-sensitive Chicago, it is against the law to eat in an establishment that is on fire.

Ridiculous that it had to be made into law. Would you stay eating in a restaurant that was on fire? I certainly would not.


Well someone must have stayed while the fire was raging LOL


You gotta wonder if the people that stayed were the Fire Department. ;)

Only if They were eating 5 alarm chili.
The T1 Trust, PRR T1 Class 4-4-4-4 #5550, 1 of America's First HST's
ID: 888133 · Report as offensive
Profile Labbie
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 19 Jun 06
Posts: 4083
Credit: 5,930,102
RAC: 0
United States
Message 888135 - Posted: 25 Apr 2009, 1:25:02 UTC - in response to Message 888133.  

In fire-sensitive Chicago, it is against the law to eat in an establishment that is on fire.

Ridiculous that it had to be made into law. Would you stay eating in a restaurant that was on fire? I certainly would not.


Well someone must have stayed while the fire was raging LOL


You gotta wonder if the people that stayed were the Fire Department. ;)

Only if They were eating 5 alarm chili.


Or eating the meals that the escaping customers left on the table...



Calm Chaos Forum...Join Calm Chaos Now
ID: 888135 · Report as offensive
Profile Bill Walker
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 4 Sep 99
Posts: 3868
Credit: 2,697,267
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 888251 - Posted: 25 Apr 2009, 14:12:06 UTC - in response to Message 888135.  

In fire-sensitive Chicago, it is against the law to eat in an establishment that is on fire.

Ridiculous that it had to be made into law. Would you stay eating in a restaurant that was on fire? I certainly would not.


Well someone must have stayed while the fire was raging LOL


You gotta wonder if the people that stayed were the Fire Department. ;)

Only if They were eating 5 alarm chili.


Or eating the meals that the escaping customers left on the table...



That may be what led to the law in the first place...


ID: 888251 · Report as offensive
Profile zoom3+1=4
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 30 Nov 03
Posts: 65740
Credit: 55,293,173
RAC: 49
United States
Message 888257 - Posted: 25 Apr 2009, 14:34:20 UTC - in response to Message 888251.  
Last modified: 25 Apr 2009, 14:34:51 UTC

In fire-sensitive Chicago, it is against the law to eat in an establishment that is on fire.

Ridiculous that it had to be made into law. Would you stay eating in a restaurant that was on fire? I certainly would not.


Well someone must have stayed while the fire was raging LOL


You gotta wonder if the people that stayed were the Fire Department. ;)

Only if They were eating 5 alarm chili.


Or eating the meals that the escaping customers left on the table...



That may be what led to the law in the first place...

Could It be one of Misfits ancestors, Nah It couldn't be.
The T1 Trust, PRR T1 Class 4-4-4-4 #5550, 1 of America's First HST's
ID: 888257 · Report as offensive
HAL

Send message
Joined: 28 Mar 03
Posts: 704
Credit: 870,617
RAC: 0
United States
Message 888514 - Posted: 26 Apr 2009, 16:52:12 UTC
Last modified: 26 Apr 2009, 16:57:29 UTC

Since Mrs. O'Leary was in the milk business before - they are trying to discourage her from supplying Steaks.

Classic WU= 7,237 Classic Hours= 42,079
ID: 888514 · Report as offensive
John McLeod VII
Volunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 15 Jul 99
Posts: 24806
Credit: 790,712
RAC: 0
United States
Message 888545 - Posted: 26 Apr 2009, 18:53:15 UTC - in response to Message 888514.  

Since Mrs. O'Leary was in the milk business before - they are trying to discourage her from supplying Steaks.

Those would be sell done steaks.


BOINC WIKI
ID: 888545 · Report as offensive
Profile zoom3+1=4
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 30 Nov 03
Posts: 65740
Credit: 55,293,173
RAC: 49
United States
Message 888581 - Posted: 26 Apr 2009, 21:08:44 UTC - in response to Message 888545.  

Since Mrs. O'Leary was in the milk business before - they are trying to discourage her from supplying Steaks.

Those would be well done steaks.

Or maybe Toasted Steaks? ;)
The T1 Trust, PRR T1 Class 4-4-4-4 #5550, 1 of America's First HST's
ID: 888581 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 . . . 6 · Next

Message boards : Cafe SETI : Stupid Laws part #2


 
©2024 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.