26 definitions by Siegfried Zaga
by Siegfried Zaga May 22, 2005
by Siegfried Zaga May 29, 2005
A phenomenon that occurs on internet message boards where administrators and/or moderators abuse their power to consistently edit annoying, lame or problematic users' posts or profiles to change the context and make the user look like a fool.
Before AA:
Upstanding User A: "How's the new GTA?"
Annoying User B: "God it sucks, it's so lame; if you buy it you're gay."
Upstanding User C: "Don't listen to the above guy, it's great."
After AA:
Upstanding User A: "How's the new GTA?"
Annoying User B: "I hear its amazing when the famous purple stuffed worm in flap-jaw space with the tuning fork does a raw blink on Hari Kiri Rock. I need scissors! 61!"
Upstanding User C: "Don't listen to the above guy, it's great."
Upstanding User A: "How's the new GTA?"
Annoying User B: "God it sucks, it's so lame; if you buy it you're gay."
Upstanding User C: "Don't listen to the above guy, it's great."
After AA:
Upstanding User A: "How's the new GTA?"
Annoying User B: "I hear its amazing when the famous purple stuffed worm in flap-jaw space with the tuning fork does a raw blink on Hari Kiri Rock. I need scissors! 61!"
Upstanding User C: "Don't listen to the above guy, it's great."
by Siegfried Zaga May 22, 2005
Of or relating to a "kill or be killed" mentality pertaining to the inherent fear that residents of crime-prone areas have of each other. This fear-thy-neighbor mentality causes individuals to feel they have no way of protecting themselves from crime or violence, except by killing anybody who threatens or harasses them.
Such mentality is usually the result of living in violent, crime-prone (typically inner-city) areas for long periods of time and/or watching too much television (no joke).
"Urban survival syndrome" has been used as a legal defense sporadically throughout American history but was first invoked in Texas (go figure) in 1993 by a black youth named Daimion Osby. Osby had been shooting craps with a group of people and had collected a hefty wad of cash ($400). Osby then violated the etiquette rules of street craps by trying to abandon the game without giving the other players a chance to win some of their money back.
Marcus Brooks, who had suffered considerable losses during the game, threatened to "get" Osby as he walked off. With the help of cousin Willie, M. Brooks attempted to shake down Osby during a basketball game, resulting in a fight that was ultimately broken up by police. Osby was again confronted by the duo while in his car sitting at a traffic light; the Brooks brandished a shotgun and tried to force Osby to pull over, but he fled. After a final uneventful confrontation in a public park, Osby purchased a .38 caliber handgun and started carrying it with him for protection.
While conversing with a woman on the curb one evening, Osby was accosted by the Brooks duo for one final time. The Brooks drove their car onto the curb, hitting Osby. They then got out of the car and began assaulting him using their fists. At this point Osby drew his gun and killed one of the Brooks cousins with a single shot to the head. As the surviving cousin attempted to retreat to the car to retrieve the handgun that was stored inside, Osby aerated his assailant's skull with a single shot to the head as well.
At his first trial his attorneys claimed the double homicide was an act of self-defense in the name of urban survival--if he hadn't shot them, they would have returned to threaten, harass or kill him later. Amusingly enough Osby's attorneys tried to convince the jury that anybody having to fight off black men would probably react similarly in fearing for their life; given the statistics, there's a lot of reason to believe black men are scary. But even more amusingly, the defense succeeded (to some degree).
There was no verdict; the jury was hung because one of two black jurors on the panel believed Osby had acted in self-defense. Prosecutors vowed a retrial.
The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution provides for protection against retrials; unless the defendant appeals a guilty verdict, he cannot be tried for the same crime twice (except being tried in both civil and criminal court). However, a hung jury does not prove conclusive--he was neither convicted nor acquitted, so he was fair game for a retrial.
The retrial was held and the "urban survival" plea was not repeated; Osby was found guilty and received an automatic life sentence, as prosecutors had decided before the second trial to not seek the death penalty.
Such mentality is usually the result of living in violent, crime-prone (typically inner-city) areas for long periods of time and/or watching too much television (no joke).
"Urban survival syndrome" has been used as a legal defense sporadically throughout American history but was first invoked in Texas (go figure) in 1993 by a black youth named Daimion Osby. Osby had been shooting craps with a group of people and had collected a hefty wad of cash ($400). Osby then violated the etiquette rules of street craps by trying to abandon the game without giving the other players a chance to win some of their money back.
Marcus Brooks, who had suffered considerable losses during the game, threatened to "get" Osby as he walked off. With the help of cousin Willie, M. Brooks attempted to shake down Osby during a basketball game, resulting in a fight that was ultimately broken up by police. Osby was again confronted by the duo while in his car sitting at a traffic light; the Brooks brandished a shotgun and tried to force Osby to pull over, but he fled. After a final uneventful confrontation in a public park, Osby purchased a .38 caliber handgun and started carrying it with him for protection.
While conversing with a woman on the curb one evening, Osby was accosted by the Brooks duo for one final time. The Brooks drove their car onto the curb, hitting Osby. They then got out of the car and began assaulting him using their fists. At this point Osby drew his gun and killed one of the Brooks cousins with a single shot to the head. As the surviving cousin attempted to retreat to the car to retrieve the handgun that was stored inside, Osby aerated his assailant's skull with a single shot to the head as well.
At his first trial his attorneys claimed the double homicide was an act of self-defense in the name of urban survival--if he hadn't shot them, they would have returned to threaten, harass or kill him later. Amusingly enough Osby's attorneys tried to convince the jury that anybody having to fight off black men would probably react similarly in fearing for their life; given the statistics, there's a lot of reason to believe black men are scary. But even more amusingly, the defense succeeded (to some degree).
There was no verdict; the jury was hung because one of two black jurors on the panel believed Osby had acted in self-defense. Prosecutors vowed a retrial.
The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution provides for protection against retrials; unless the defendant appeals a guilty verdict, he cannot be tried for the same crime twice (except being tried in both civil and criminal court). However, a hung jury does not prove conclusive--he was neither convicted nor acquitted, so he was fair game for a retrial.
The retrial was held and the "urban survival" plea was not repeated; Osby was found guilty and received an automatic life sentence, as prosecutors had decided before the second trial to not seek the death penalty.
by Siegfried Zaga May 22, 2005
Of or relating to the "kill or be killed" mentality of inherent fear that residents of crime-prone areas have of each other. This "fear-thy-neighbor" mentality causes individuals to feel they have no way of protecting themselves from crime or violence, except by killing anybody who threatens or harasses them.
Such mentality is usually the result of living in violent, crime-prone (typically inner-city) areas for long periods of time and/or watching too much television (no joke).
"Urban survival syndrome" has been used as a legal defense sporadically throughout American history but was first invoked in Texas (go figure) in 1993 by a black youth named Daimion Osby.
Such mentality is usually the result of living in violent, crime-prone (typically inner-city) areas for long periods of time and/or watching too much television (no joke).
"Urban survival syndrome" has been used as a legal defense sporadically throughout American history but was first invoked in Texas (go figure) in 1993 by a black youth named Daimion Osby.
Daimion Osby had been shooting craps with a group of people and collected a hefty wad of cash ($400). After the other players paid up, he violated the etiquette rules of street craps by trying to abandon the game without giving the other players a chance to win some of their money back.
Marcus Brooks, one of the players who had suffered considerable losses during the game, threatened to "get" Osby as he walked off. With the help of cousin Willie, Marcus Brooks attempted to shake down Osby during a basketball game, resulting in a fight that was ultimately broken up by police. Osby was again confronted by the duo while in his car sitting at a traffic light; the Brooks brandished a shotgun and tried to force Osby to pull over, but he fled. After a final uneventful confrontation in a public park, Osby purchased a .38 caliber handgun and started carrying it with him for protection.
While conversing with a woman curbside one evening, Osby was again accosted by the Brooks duo. The Brooks drove their car onto the curb, hitting Osby. They then got out of the car and began assaulting him using their fists. At this point Osby drew his gun and killed one of the Brooks cousins with a single shot to the head. As the surviving cousin retreated to his car to retrieve his own handgun, Osby aerated the surviving assailant's skull with another perfect shot to the head.
At Osby's first trial, his attorneys claimed the double homicide was an act of self-defense in the name of urban survival--if he hadn't shot them, they would have returned to threaten, harass or kill him later. Amusingly enough Osby's attorneys tried to convince the jury that anybody having to fight off two black guys would probably react similarly in fearing for their life; given the statistics, there's a lot of reason to believe black men are scary. But even more amusingly, the defense succeeded (to some degree).
There was no verdict; the jury was hung because one of two black jurors on the panel believed Osby had acted in self-defense. Prosecutors vowed a retrial.
The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution provides for protection against retrials; unless the defendant appeals a guilty verdict, he cannot be tried for the same crime twice (except being tried in both civil and criminal court). However, a hung jury does not prove conclusive--he was neither convicted nor acquitted, so he was fair game for a retrial.
The retrial was held and the "urban survival" plea was not repeated; Osby was found guilty of murder and received an automatic life sentence, as prosecutors had decided before the second trial to not seek the death penalty.
Marcus Brooks, one of the players who had suffered considerable losses during the game, threatened to "get" Osby as he walked off. With the help of cousin Willie, Marcus Brooks attempted to shake down Osby during a basketball game, resulting in a fight that was ultimately broken up by police. Osby was again confronted by the duo while in his car sitting at a traffic light; the Brooks brandished a shotgun and tried to force Osby to pull over, but he fled. After a final uneventful confrontation in a public park, Osby purchased a .38 caliber handgun and started carrying it with him for protection.
While conversing with a woman curbside one evening, Osby was again accosted by the Brooks duo. The Brooks drove their car onto the curb, hitting Osby. They then got out of the car and began assaulting him using their fists. At this point Osby drew his gun and killed one of the Brooks cousins with a single shot to the head. As the surviving cousin retreated to his car to retrieve his own handgun, Osby aerated the surviving assailant's skull with another perfect shot to the head.
At Osby's first trial, his attorneys claimed the double homicide was an act of self-defense in the name of urban survival--if he hadn't shot them, they would have returned to threaten, harass or kill him later. Amusingly enough Osby's attorneys tried to convince the jury that anybody having to fight off two black guys would probably react similarly in fearing for their life; given the statistics, there's a lot of reason to believe black men are scary. But even more amusingly, the defense succeeded (to some degree).
There was no verdict; the jury was hung because one of two black jurors on the panel believed Osby had acted in self-defense. Prosecutors vowed a retrial.
The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution provides for protection against retrials; unless the defendant appeals a guilty verdict, he cannot be tried for the same crime twice (except being tried in both civil and criminal court). However, a hung jury does not prove conclusive--he was neither convicted nor acquitted, so he was fair game for a retrial.
The retrial was held and the "urban survival" plea was not repeated; Osby was found guilty of murder and received an automatic life sentence, as prosecutors had decided before the second trial to not seek the death penalty.
by Siegfried Zaga May 29, 2005
Mandrax (pronounced "mandrakes" and often misspelled as such) is the name of a particular quaalude (or "downer") tablet that was first manufactured in Britain during the late 60s and early 70s. Its active ingredient is Methaqualone, which is chemically and functionally related to barbiturates. Street names for Mandrakes include "mandies," "buttons," "MX," and "white pipe." Mandrax tablets were initially a controlled substance prescribed as a sleeping aid but were pulled off the market and banned because of their extremely high dependancy (addiction) rate.
Though legal production of Mandrax ceased long ago, it is still illegally manufactured in many African and south Asian countries and is fighting a losing battle with crack cocaine on the African drug market. Mandrax tablets were designed to be taken orally but current trends in abuse involve grinding the tablets into powder and snorting them, or more commonly grinding the tablets and mixing them with Dagga before smoking it inside a specialized Dagga pipe (hence the nickname "white pipe"). When taken orally, Mandrax is almost always abused in conjunction with alcohol which serves to magnify the euphoric effects.
Side effects of Mandrax are similar to those of the common anti-depressant--cramps, insomnia, headaches, emotional instability, and so forth, with the added effects of toxin-induced psychosis as well as loss of muscle control.
The United States Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) has classified Mandrax as a Schedule I drug due to the fact that it contains Methaqualone. Schedule I drugs are illegal to possess without a license in the United States because of the potential for abuse and/or addiction.
Though legal production of Mandrax ceased long ago, it is still illegally manufactured in many African and south Asian countries and is fighting a losing battle with crack cocaine on the African drug market. Mandrax tablets were designed to be taken orally but current trends in abuse involve grinding the tablets into powder and snorting them, or more commonly grinding the tablets and mixing them with Dagga before smoking it inside a specialized Dagga pipe (hence the nickname "white pipe"). When taken orally, Mandrax is almost always abused in conjunction with alcohol which serves to magnify the euphoric effects.
Side effects of Mandrax are similar to those of the common anti-depressant--cramps, insomnia, headaches, emotional instability, and so forth, with the added effects of toxin-induced psychosis as well as loss of muscle control.
The United States Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) has classified Mandrax as a Schedule I drug due to the fact that it contains Methaqualone. Schedule I drugs are illegal to possess without a license in the United States because of the potential for abuse and/or addiction.
No example provided for "Mandrax."
by Siegfried Zaga May 22, 2005
(n.)
Terminology related to the BDSM lifestyle. A "shrimper" is a person who derives sexual satisfaction from sucking toes.
Terminology related to the BDSM lifestyle. A "shrimper" is a person who derives sexual satisfaction from sucking toes.
by Siegfried Zaga June 2, 2005