On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 09:14:52 -0500, Richard
wrote:

On 4/20/2013 8:56 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 18:46:06 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 11:46:00 -0500, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"
lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:

Ed fired this volley in
:

Somehow I'm not troubled by amateur pyros having some of their
freedoms restricted.

If you feel that way, you don't know much about the art.

Nope, and he and his Obamunists don't care to.


"Amateur pyrotechnicians" are not "backyard bombers". They are, in fact,
the source of MOST of the new effects and techniques used in the
professional trade.

Precisely. But try to get that through progressives' skulls. Ditto
gun owners are not terrorists or snipers...unless pushed too far.g

And what, exactly, do you know about "amateur pyrotechnicians" being
"the source of MOST of the new effects and techniques used in the
professional trade," Larry? I don't recall you ever expressing an
involvement with the subject before, least of all the origins of "new
techniques in the professional trade."

Do you really know what you're talking about, or, if you'll forgive
the pun, are you just blowing smoke? d8-)



As an AMATEUR, I developed a professional fireworks sequencer that
plugged into a laptop printer port. That was mid 80s.
They are common now.

Just for the love of it.

amo:I love
amas: You love
amat: He, She, or It loves
amamus: We love
amatis: You (plural) love
amant: They love

Were you an amateur pyrotechnician, or a computer technician who
created something for pyrotechnicians?

There's no presumption there. It's a serious question. It's not a
field that I know anything about, but "amateur pyrotechnician"
implies, to me, someone who's working with the explosives and
propellants themselves. Is that a fair distinction?

--
Ed Huntress