PDA

View Full Version : A Lesson in Parenting... EXTREME Parenting


cppcrusader
04-25-2006, 01:43 PM
While most parents are content to hit the power button or yank out the power cord, a man in Dunedin, FL decided that wasn't extreme (http://www.tampabays10.com/news/local/article.aspx?storyid=29560) enough. Instead he held a gun to his son's computer and threatened to shoot it.

The older Langenderfer reportedly told deputies he was mad that his son had not done the laundry and was spending all his time playing games on their computer. He told deputies that although he told his son he was going to shoot the computer, the gun accidentally fired.
This could be the first true case of videogame-induced violence. ;)

Evil Avatar
04-25-2006, 02:16 PM
I guess this means that the Son will now have 5 - 10 to play World of Warcraft.

Sensei-X
04-25-2006, 02:22 PM
Langenderfer is in the Pinellas County jail charged with one count of attempted murder, (accused of trying to kill his son, not the computer.)

Best quote from an article, ever.

Heretic Machine
04-25-2006, 02:24 PM
1. Playing with guns = dangerous.

2. Dicking around with a gamer's hardware = more dangerous.

Just so you know.

aversion2k
04-25-2006, 02:45 PM
I guess this means that the Son will now have 5 - 10 to play World of Warcraft.

Dont you mean the dad?

Dag-Sabot
04-25-2006, 02:50 PM
uh...Afk, Gunfire.

Citizen Philip
04-25-2006, 02:50 PM
This dickweed should be playing more games. Helps to work out stress! I mean what kind of crazy person pulls a gun on a person?

Oh?! Gamers?

Skjef
04-25-2006, 02:50 PM
Ugh. Stuff like this makes me glad that gun ownership is so restricted up here in the great white north.

Skjef
04-25-2006, 02:51 PM
uh...Afk, Gunfire.LOL. That sounds like a bad bash.org quote.

The Continental
04-25-2006, 02:55 PM
As a resident of Florida, I'm going to have chalk this one up to a disorder first detailed in the autobiography of one D.L. Roth, that is, the father was "crazy from the heat".

Arglor
04-25-2006, 03:14 PM
Dont you mean the dad?

no he meant the son.... the father is going to be doing hard time for 5 to 10 years and the son can play WoW for that time....

Citizen Philip
04-25-2006, 03:22 PM
As a resident of Florida, I'm going to have chalk this one up to a disorder first detailed in the autobiography of one D.L. Roth, that is, the father was "crazy from the heat".

There are reasons why older European colonial efforts mostly failed around the equator.

Their distance from the captiol was costing too many shields.

Deathbane27
04-25-2006, 04:09 PM
Heh, what a fool. If you're just threatening to shoot something, don't load the damn gun!

And if he was actually considering wrecking a $400+ piece of equipment to make a point... rich bastard.

ElPresidente
04-25-2006, 04:15 PM
Oh yes folks... it is gaming that breed the violence in our children. Not parents walking around with guns. :roll:

netcraazzy
04-25-2006, 04:28 PM
I didn't see anything about this in the newspaper today. I'm guessing since the father was acting irrationally in response to the son playing games it wasn't deemed news worthy. However, if the son had acted with such violence towards his father for making him stop playing games you better believe it would be on the front page.

NonSoft
04-25-2006, 05:17 PM
I didn't see anything about this in the newspaper today. I'm guessing since the father was acting irrationally in response to the son playing games it wasn't deemed news worthy. However, if the son had acted with such violence towards his father for making him stop playing games you better believe it would be on the front page.

It would have been national news. :eek:

Atepsflame
04-25-2006, 06:06 PM
All I had to do was look at the father's picture to know what kind of man he was. Does that make me a bad person?

thecrazyd
04-25-2006, 06:22 PM
All I had to do was look at the father's picture to know what kind of man he was. Does that make me a bad person?
What, you can read his mind? I think that makes you a WITCH! BURN HIM!

aversion2k
04-25-2006, 06:32 PM
no he meant the son.... the father is going to be doing hard time for 5 to 10 years and the son can play WoW for that time....

Ahh, I thought he ment the son would be in prision and hence would have a lot of spare time to play wow.

which wouldnt make sense because the son isnt going to prison

cppcrusader
04-25-2006, 08:21 PM
As a resident of Florida, I'm going to have chalk this one up to a disorder first detailed in the autobiography of one D.L. Roth, that is, the father was "crazy from the heat".

With as hot as its been the last week or so, I'd be inclined to agree with you. Though after tomorrow someone could claim road rage instead after the first ramp closure on I-4.

51|RandoM
04-26-2006, 03:14 AM
They can have my computer when they pry it from my cold, dead hands?

Subbacultcha
04-26-2006, 05:09 AM
Bowling for Tamriel?

Selar
04-26-2006, 07:03 AM
Ahh, I thought he ment the son would be in prision and hence would have a lot of spare time to play wow.

which wouldnt make sense because the son isnt going to prison

I'm pretty sure you don't get to play WoW in prison either...

AzN.Homeboy
04-26-2006, 09:09 AM
So the son's pressing charges against his dad so he can get his gaming time. Ha, they're both dicks.

Neosho
04-26-2006, 11:03 AM
So the son's pressing charges against his dad so he can get his gaming time. Ha, they're both dicks.
QFT and awesome.

Serapth
04-26-2006, 11:12 AM
So the son's pressing charges against his dad so he can get his gaming time. Ha, they're both dicks.

Well, the white never falls far from the trash.

This is why you dont trust people with mullets.

Panda Love
04-26-2006, 11:51 AM
I'm pretty sure you don't get to play WoW in prison either...
But if you could...

awesome

netcraazzy
04-26-2006, 03:32 PM
With as hot as its been the last week or so, I'd be inclined to agree with you. Though after tomorrow someone could claim road rage instead after the first ramp closure on I-4.

Too late. A few years ago somebody pulled a gun on another driver on I-4 in Tampa. I believe he was pissed because the other driver cut him off. Its pretty sad that you have to be affriad of people bust'n a cap in yo ass for cutting them off in traffic these days.

MojoJojo
04-26-2006, 03:38 PM
I believe he was pissed because the other driver cut him off. Its pretty sad that you have to be affriad of people bust'n a cap in yo ass for cutting them off in traffic these days.
Ok.

So don't fuckin cut people off in traffic.

netcraazzy
04-26-2006, 03:55 PM
Ok.

So don't fuckin cut people off in traffic.

So I guess by your logic, the judge should just tell the kid in this story that if he does not want his father to shoot things don't fuckin play computer games when he's not supposed to? The first wrong does not justify the second.

MojoJojo
04-26-2006, 04:31 PM
So I guess by your logic, the judge should just tell the kid in this story that if he does not want his father to shoot things don't fuckin play computer games when he's not supposed to? The first wrong does not justify the second.
Did I say it justifies it?

Let me deconstruct what I said...

Ok.
This indicates that I understood what you were saying.

So don't fuckin cut people off in traffic.
This advises not cutting off people in traffic. Why? Because, as you put:

I believe he was pissed because the other driver cut him off. Its pretty sad that you have to be affriad of people bust'n a cap in yo ass for cutting them off in traffic these days.
So, my meaning is pretty simple:

If you do not want to be shot for cutting off people in traffic, do not cut off people in traffic.

I did not say, "you should be shot for cutting people off in traffic." Further, I did not say, "things should be shot for playing video games when you are told not to." I did not even say, "you should not be shot at for cutting people off in traffic." I also did not say, "things should not be shot for playing video games when you are told not to."

Now, had I actually said, "you should be shot for cutting people off in traffic", then you could imply I also would say "if you would like for your things to not be shot up, do not play video games when you are told not to." But, that isn't actually what I said.

I made no value judgement at all, if you will notice, about the "wrong" of being shot or having things around you shot for committing the first "wrong" of inciting the second action.

Is that clear enough, or do I need to be a little more erudite with my explaination? I would not want you to be further confused should my choice of words not be optimal, because it seems that otherwise your "jump to conclusions" mat may be malfunctioning.

netcraazzy
04-26-2006, 05:42 PM
Ok, I'm not going to argue over something silly like this. Sorry if it got you so riled up.