Metalworking (rec.crafts.metalworking) Discuss various aspects of working with metal, such as machining, welding, metal joining, screwing, casting, hardening/tempering, blacksmithing/forging, spinning and hammer work, sheet metal work.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #161   Report Post  
Dan
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee



--

"Such is the complacency these great men have for the smiles of their prince
that they will gratify every desire of ambition and power at the expense of
truth, reason, and their country."

- John Dickinson, 1771 -

"Dan" wrote

Perhaps you could read the text as written and deal with that, instead of
ignoring what was written and arguing about something that was not
even there?


In a more chastened voice, Dan then proceeded to write:

Perhaps I should read the text as written... Dang, hate when I do that!
In my be Emilie Latella voice: "Never mind!"

Dan


  #162   Report Post  
Ed Huntress
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee

"Bray Haven" wrote in message
...


To call these selective facts "lies" is an even
worse distortion of the truth than the original selective "reporting" of

facts.
Greg Sefton


No, it fits right into the definition, and into the intent, Greg, in an
important sense that Webster's and others define the term: "to create a
false or misleading impression." That's why propaganda, which is a mixture
of truths and lies intended to create a false impression, is a form of
lying.

As I said at the outset, "Ford," should he actually exist, is either a fool
or a liar. The whole statement is constructed to give the false impression
that states where they have open carry and where there are no permits (there
aren't 25 of them in any case, but it made a handy number for "Ford" to use)
have vastly lower murder rates than other states. By mixing his fractions --
states in one case, people in the other -- he made the false impression.
That's either a stupid mistake (the "fool" option) or an intentional lie.

Ed Huntress



  #163   Report Post  
Carl Byrns
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee

On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 17:33:52 -0800, "Dan" wrote:


  #164   Report Post  
Richard Lewis
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee

"Dan" wrote:

Gunner truly believes words mean what, and only what, he personally thinks
they should mean. Makes it hard to communicate with him.


I wasn't talking about Gunner.....I agree with him....I was talking
about the guy who didn't know what an "arsenal" is and was trying to
"technical" his way through it.

ral

Dan





  #165   Report Post  
Eastburn
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee

Gunshots are just that. Gunshots.

Likely Pegasus pawing the rooftop of the old Mobil Oil building with
the towers all around it now. Once it was the skyline for 100 miles or
so.
But that was before the interstate system was carved through and around
Dallas.
Before 30, 20, 35, 635 etc.

Martin
--
Martin Eastburn, Barbara Eastburn
@ home at Lion's Lair with our computer
NRA LOH, NRA Life
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder


  #166   Report Post  
Old Nick
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee

On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 12:25:15 GMT, (Richard
Lewis) wrote something
.......and in reply I say!:


errr. I think Ed talked of looking at _populations_ and murders. It's
people that do the murders, not states...more people more murders.


No, Ed, Carl, and Jim accused Gunner of using a lying quote and tried
to prove it by re-interpreting it however they wished. The quote was,
in fact, true


It was probably a true quote, yes. ANd the _figure_ is correct.....
....but _means_ absolutely nothing! It's not even ambiguous. It means
nothing.

As I said, States don't kill people. People do.

To illustrate with the ridiculous. You have two neighbouring states.
One has an area of one million square miles, and a population of one
person. The other is New York. It is quite possible for there to be 0
murders per hundred thousand in the lone-man state, for all of the
guy's natural life. There may also be 100,000 per 100,000 in one year
(but only if New Yorker kills him, barring suuicide G). The figures
regarding the states mean nothing.

Heck! It would make sense if you even started looking at deaths per
area! (Although even then, not much)

and it was Ed, Carl, and Jim who were "lying or fools
and probably a bit of both".


************************************************** ** sorry
remove ns from my header address to reply via email

Imagine a _world_ where Nature's lights are obscured
by man's. There would be nowhere to go.
Or wait a while. Then you won't have to imagine.
  #168   Report Post  
Richard Lewis
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee

Carl Byrns wrote:

Nope. I never mentioned the veracity of the quote.
Check the time stamps or get a real newsreader.


Ed said it was a lie or that Gunner/Ford were crazy which you agreed
with by claiming that he couldn't refute the remark, idiot.

Did you even graduate high school or did you pick up the pussified "I
know you are but what am I?" method of debate from a comic book along
the way?

ral

My post was:


"Betcha a bagel he doesn't respond at all- that's his way of dealing
with anything he can't refute.


-Carl"


-Carl



  #169   Report Post  
Richard Lewis
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee

"Dan" wrote:

"Gunner" wrote


Why would they be higher? An armed society is a polite society.
At least in the US. Historically.


Show us. Actual information, not just your favorite history book.


Prove a negative, eh, Dan?

You're better than that.

The onus is on you to prove that crime has ever gone up due to
firearms ownership. It's been tried hundreds of times and never been
proven once....I doubt you will prove it this time

ral

Dan





  #170   Report Post  
Sunworshiper
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 14:01:31 -0500, Kirk Gordon
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:

The significance of the issue really is a sorry one to begin with. To
suggest there's any relationship between a state's open-carry laws and crime
rates is an incredible stretch, first, because so few people strap guns on
and walk around "the streets," anyway. A note on the Packing.org site from a
guy in Kansas, says it all: involved enough with guns to have written to his
local sheriff for an explanation of open-carry, and to have posted the
Sheriff's reply on the Packing.org site, he notes at the bottom that, in his
20+ years he's lived in the state, he's never seen anyone open-carry a
handgun.


I am NOT going to get involved in this debate! However...


I'm not going to either , but this post I don't agree with. There are
alot of places to get involved in this long debait over the sig. /
quote.

I've often thought that if people are going to carry guns, then they
should be REQUIRED to carry them openly, visibly; and should not be
allowed to conceal them. If we can all tell that someone is armed, just
by looking at him/her, then each of us can make better, more fully
informed decisions about our own behavior. (If Jehova's Witnesses knock
on my door at 7:30 in the morning, and they're all wearing gunbelts and
357's, then I'm a lot more likely just to pretend I'm not home than to
open the door and chase them away. If the weapons are concealed,
however, and if I open the door and let the dog out, and THEN learn that
the JW's are packing, things could get ugly.)


Why should your behavior be different? You'd let the mean dog on me
if you know I'm not packing? Thanks !

The night before last I'm backing up to my house and a guy is at the
door and the wife looking through the blinds. I usually have a gun in
my truck , but didn't cause I'm working on a CCW for a different gun.
More or less, "Im jumping through hoops to be legal and its taking
time and thus I'm unarmed. Sure, having the old one in the truck is
illegal in most areas of the valley , but at least I have a
registration card for it. Anyhow, I'm thinking that this could get
nasty while this guy is coming up to the truck door as I'm getting
out. This guy pulls out his wallet and starts on this cry for me
speech and needs $. To late , but he could have pulled out a gun.
I recognized this guy that had hit me up for $ a couple of weeks ago
at a gas station. I told him so and I still won't give him any $ , and
he gets all ****y and saying it wasn't him and we should get in a
fight and better yet he should just shoot me ! I just had a feel for
this guy cause he got ****y with me the first time , but if I had'nt
run into him before I'd be very concerned. BTW he was going to show
me a virgin marry card and tell me he is a trucker ( that's when I cut
him off in his game) from NB and his father inlaw had a stroke and
needs $ for a plane ticket home. That didn't make since the first
time cause he should drive the truck home.

It seems to me that a concealed weapon is more of a problem, and
should be more of a concern than, say, a rifle or shotgun clearly
visible in the back window of a pickup truck. I never think twice about
that, when I happen to see it. The gun-owner is probably a farmer, or a
rancher, or someone else who benefits from being able to prang a
groundhog or a coyote when the need arises. Same with the handguns worn
by cops. I know they're there. I know there's a reason for them that
has nothing to do with threatening me. And I don't mind a bit.


This is a troll , right? I'm from Texas and think rifles should be in
the back window of every pick up. I bet if I had one in the window
here in NV. it would'nt be there one or two days and I'd have a broken
window. Don't think you can even hang one up like that in this state
anyhow, but you can have one strapped on walking down the street. I
see it once in awhile , and think nothing about it. oooh cops and guns
, guess you've never had a cop pointing a gun at you when your doing
nothing wrong. I have a couple of times and probably 5 times where
they have it un-strapped and their hand on it. They have stole my
gun, wedding ring, chicks, and others I shouldn't get into .

Someone who wants to protect himself could probably, in most cases
be better protected by announcing himself as armed, rather than by
concealing his gun and looking like unarmed prey to a prospective
criminal. Surprising the criminal might be fun or satisfying for
someone who doesn't get killed while trying it; but it can't possibly be
the best way to be safe.


Announcing is the same to me as branishing it , except others will see
it and call the cops. Try walking through a group of red colors ,
three on each of them , with a nice shiney gun and you know what they
will be thinking? They will think its worth a big pile of DOPE and
pull out a throw away gun and take it from you. They part way for me
and don't think a thing about a crazy long haired craker who might
just be packing. Fun or satisfying has nothing to do with being safe ,
or shall we say better off than being unarmed.

When someone conceals a weapon, then it makes perfect sense for
others to question the reason for the concealment, and the real purpose
for which the weapon is intended. If I have to make the choice, I'd
rather see "Open Carry Mandatory" laws, with VERY stiff penalties for
concealment, than wasted attempts to outlaw guns that we don't even
know are there.


I could write a book on why I like to have a gun , but that shouldn't
concern anyone else. Having one hidden has many advantages and that's
what you want most of in a bad situation. The last part of the last
sentence makes alot of sence cause the people that use them to hurt or
rob others don't care what laws they have to go through to use it in
their fasion , its all illegal so what's the point of a background
check.

And, if guns were as visible as, say, cigarrettes, then I suspect
we'd do a much better job of policing ourselves through the time honored
practice of "social pressure". My sister-in-law's house is an absolute
no smoking zone. It's her house, and she has a right to make the rules,
and everybody in the family knows it. And, SHE'LL know immediately if I
decide to unwrap a cheap cigar and light up in her living room. If I
did the same kind of thing, and decided that my home was a gun-free
place, then anyone who wanted to visit, or some young man who came to
pick up my stepdaughter for a date, or the delivery people bringing my
new sofa, would have to make the same kinds of choices that smokers do,
since their weapons would be as easy to detect as a plume of smoke.
Better yet, I could do this WITHOUT having to limit the rights of any
person to be as armed as he/she cares to be. I'd only be exercising my
own right to detrimine what goes on in my own house.


This reminds me of a customer that didn't want me smoking in her
backyard cause her dogs are alergic to it and they are in the house.

The results of peer pressure and widespread social disapproval of
smoking have been pretty astonishing, and have developed pretty quickly,
as large scale social trends go. I wonder if the public wearing of
visible guns, even if completely legal, couldn't be moderated in the
same way, and for very similar reasons.


Peer/sheeple pressure... Hmmm , that's basically why I'm posting this
and Gunner's reason to post his pro gun threads (I guess). To
hopefully get the above turned around so they don't pressure us with
voting or what ever to lessen gun rights.

KG



I know its a bad subject , but they might as well have a federal CCW.
I'm sure they know who I am already and have way more info. than civil
rights people could be able to handle. I wonder if you wanted to pack
and traveled around the 48 states how many hoops you would have to
jump through , how long it would take doing the paper work , and how
much it would cost. Bet you'd need a team to do it for you and you
couldn't start on your trip for months or maybe years !

Its obvious to me that the founding fathers had in mind that everyone
should be able own one , hey they were up against death to even write
the thing. And what a better time to set up a Gov't that should look
over its own shoulder. Today , It would have to get really bad for
the sheep to stand up , but that has nothing to do with what was
meant. At least we should have them still even though mostly for self
preservation against smaller everyday things no matter what city ,
county , or state your in or pass through. And should always be just
in case it does get really bad and the sheep will be able to stand up.

It really should be that you go through a check of you not the gun for
free and only an obligation to report a missing one. How many
registered gun owners kill people vs. all the others to the X/100,000
should be the question. It shouldn't matter how many you have it
should be that you have been checked to own one no matter what kind.
If you get caught with a outlawed one then it will be lost.

I personally don't want to go down to the cop shop everytime I want to
switch guns. Matter of fact the laws are so bad that you should have
throw away guns so when they are taken away cause it should be
unloaded or what ever it doesn't hurt so bad.

Hell , I'm an idealist and this is a complex subject.



  #171   Report Post  
Carl Nisarel
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee

Gunner wrote

Lott's research amounts to
the largest data set that has ever been put together for any study of
crime, let alone for the study of gun control.


The size of a database is an irrelevant measure of research quality.
Garbage in=garbage out.

Lott's more guns, less crime research has been well-shredded and sent
to the dump where it belongs.

See Ayers & Donohue's articles and Maltz's article, among many others,
which demonstrate that Lott's MGLC research is invalid.
  #172   Report Post  
JTMcC
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee


"Carl Nisarel" wrote in message
om...
Gunner wrote

Lott's research amounts to
the largest data set that has ever been put together for any study of
crime, let alone for the study of gun control.


The size of a database is an irrelevant measure of research quality.
Garbage in=garbage out.

Lott's more guns, less crime research has been well-shredded and sent
to the dump where it belongs.

See Ayers & Donohue's articles and Maltz's article, among many others,
which demonstrate that Lott's MGLC research is invalid.


Carl, when your lovely wife, I'm assuming you have a lovely wife, if not you
can fill in the blank with girlfriend, Mom, sis, any person you care deeply
about that doesn't posess great strength and a violent attitude, is
assaulted by a unethical criminal, intent on taking stuff and doing bodily
harm to your loved one, just what would you consider the proper course of
action? This against a person that your loved one has no chance of ever
matching up to or beating in a physical confrontation. Where, just by
chance, a weapon, like a firearm, would mean your loved one's survival, and
without said weapon, your loved one is dead. Please give us your response to
said senario.

JTMcC.




  #173   Report Post  
Cliff Huprich
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee

Gunner wrote in message . ..
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=35862
"25 States allow anyone to buy a gun, strap it on,
and walk down the street with no permit of any kind:
some say it's crazy. However, 4 out of 5 US murders
are committed in the other half of the country: so who is crazy?" -- Andrew Ford


America's war on nature

[
For decades, US corporate interests have systematically sabotaged
efforts to protect the environment. But the Bush years have seen the
polluters encouraged to despoil as never before. Robert F Kennedy Jr
laments
04 December 2003


George Bush will go down in history as America's worst environmental
president. In a ferocious three-year attack, the Bush administration
has initiated more than 200 major rollbacks of America's environmental
laws, weakening the protection of our country's air, water, public
lands and wildlife. Cloaked in meticulously crafted language designed
to deceive the public, the administration intends to eliminate the
nation's most important environmental laws by the end of the year.
.......
......
]

Mo http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...p?story=469820
--
Cliff
  #174   Report Post  
Carl Byrns
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee

On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 21:03:57 GMT, strabo wrote:

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 05:05:40 GMT, Carl Byrns
wrote:


Open carry will not protect you from a drive-by


It might.

In the movies, maybe. In real life, rarely if ever.

or being run down by a drunk driver


Irrelevant.


No, it's not. Ford is implying that having a sidearm protects you from
murder- but he doesn't take into account that not all murders are
confrontational (like a hold up) and that in many states a death
caused by a DWI driver is a capital murder charge. Like wise, child
abuse death victims are considered murder victims and it's pretty
obvious that an infant can't handle a sidearm. Ford is trying to
compare apples to oranges.

-Carl

  #176   Report Post  
Old Nick
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee

On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 20:52:46 GMT, Sunworshiper
wrote something
.......and in reply I say!:


The night before last I'm backing up to my house and a guy is at the

snip
he gets all ****y and saying it wasn't him and we should get in a
fight and better yet he should just shoot me ! I just had a feel for
this guy cause he got ****y with me the first time , but if I had'nt
run into him before I'd be very concerned.


This is a troll , right? I'm from Texas and think rifles should be in
the back window of every pick up. I bet if I had one in the window

snip
, guess you've never had a cop pointing a gun at you when your doing
nothing wrong. I have a couple of times and probably 5 times where
they have it un-strapped and their hand on it.


They have stole my
gun, wedding ring, chicks, and others I shouldn't get into .


Cops have stolen them? ANd the other stuff you shouldn't mention?

They part way for me
and don't think a thing about a crazy long haired craker who might
just be packing. Fun or satisfying has nothing to do with being safe ,
or shall we say better off than being unarmed.


I could write a book on why I like to have a gun , but that shouldn't
concern anyone else.


Well, it sure concerns ME! You sound like about the best anit-gun
argument I have ever heard allowed out.
************************************************** ** sorry
remove ns from my header address to reply via email

Imagine a _world_ where Nature's lights are obscured
by man's. There would be nowhere to go.
Or wait a while. Then you won't have to imagine.
  #177   Report Post  
Bert
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee

(Richard Lewis) wrote:

"Dan" wrote:

Gunner truly believes words mean what, and only what, he personally thinks
they should mean. Makes it hard to communicate with him.


I wasn't talking about Gunner.....I agree with him....I was talking
about the guy who didn't know what an "arsenal" is and was trying to
"technical" his way through it.


Dang, I didn't think anyone would catch me trying to "technical" my
way through it. Don't I feel silly for placing any credence in
definitions from a fancy store-bought dictionary! After all, those
are written by people who devote their careers to studying words and
how they're used and their meanings and how they evolve and other
useless stuff like that. What do they know? Next time I'll know better
than to trust those yahoos; instead I'll put my faith in Gunner's and
Richard's definitions.

Incidentally, I happened to be in a library today and just for grins
looked in a half-dozen different dictionaries. They all contained
definitions similar to those I posted before for arsenal and armory.
According to the New Oxford American Dictionary, the "core sense" of
arsenal is a collection of weapons held by a state, army, or
individual [paraphrased since I don't have the book in front of me];
the definition that associates arsenal with the manufacturing of
weapons is considered a "sub sense" of the word. The core sense of
armory is a place where arms are stored.

It's really quite sad: all those lexicographers, along with the
linguists, etymologists, and technical experts they consult (not to
mention that darned liberal press and most of the English-speaking
world), don't have any idea what "arsenal" and "armory" truly mean and
instead they all try to "technical" their way through it. Thank
goodness we here in rcm have access to those ultimate arbiters of
meaning, Richard and Gunner, so we can know the true definitions of
words.

Bert
  #178   Report Post  
Bert
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee

(Bob Summers) wrote:

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 14:24:20 GMT, Bert wrote:

Gunner wrote:

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 10:08:45 GMT, Bert wrote:

Gunner wrote:

Hummm and your state is a hotbed of murders and terror compared to
North Dakota with its 1.1

snip

Perhaps we should compare this to Japans rate of 1.1
Japan has a total ban on any firearm of any sort btw
However...the murder rate in Japan, with weapons other than firearms,
is 3.2 per hundred thousand.

snip

In Japan, the United Nations reports the murder rate is about 1.1 per
100,000. In the U.S., there are about 3.2 murders per 100,000 people
each year by weapons other than firearms. This means that even if
firearms in the U.S. could be magically eliminated, we would still
have three times the murder rate of the Japanese.

If "the murder rate in Japan, with weapons other than firearms,
is 3.2 per hundred thousand" and "in the U.S., there are about 3.2
murders per 100,000 people each year by weapons other than firearms",
how is it that "we would still have three times the murder rate of the
Japanese" if firearms were eliminated?

Good question. Email the author and ask him. Then report back to us.


Nah. I think since you're the one who spewed this inconsistent prose
into the newsgroup, you should report back to us.


3 x 1.1 = ~3.2 looks like a consistent statement to me at 2 digit precision.


True but irrelevant. Let me spell it out for you. The inconsistency is
due to Gunner claiming in one paragraph that "In Japan, the United
Nations reports the murder rate is about 1.1 per 100,000," while in
another paragraph he claims that "the murder rate in Japan, with
weapons other than firearms, is 3.2 per hundred thousand." If it's 3.2
with weapons other than firearms, it can't very well be 1.1 in total,
can it? Maybe Gunner wrote in error in one place or the other, or
maybe he correctly quoted inconsistent sources, but he's not admitting
to either. In any case, the net result is that what he wrote was
inconsistent.

Bert

  #179   Report Post  
Ed Huntress
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee

"Carl Byrns" wrote in message
...

Ed said it was a lie or that Gunner/Ford were crazy which you agreed
with by claiming that he couldn't refute the remark, idiot.

Did you even graduate high school or did you pick up the pussified "I
know you are but what am I?" method of debate from a comic book along
the way?

ral


You know, one of the things I admire about Ed is that he never not
once resorts to insults when he's on the unpopular side of an opinion.
Nor does he try to distort what others have written- he can defend his
position calmly and with solid fact.

You, Gunner, and McCracken don't seem to posess those qualities: if
you can't defend your argument you either make something up or start
slingin' the mud.


I appreciate that, Carl, but I think you must have missed a few of my
postings from time to time. g A sanctimonious jackass like Richard may be
hard to penetrate with facts, so we'll see where that goes.

Ed Huntress


  #180   Report Post  
Bray Haven
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee

I appreciate that, Carl, but I think you must have missed a few of my
postings from time to time. g A sanctimonious jackass like Richard may be
hard to penetrate with facts, so we'll see where that goes.

Ed Huntress


I thought about that too, having seen personal insults hurled by Mr Ed from
time to time. BTW, as a breeder & trainer of mules, I hate to see that
particular handle used maliciously. A vocation, by the way, which has helped me
immesely in some of my discussions in this forum ).
Greg Sefton
http://members.aol.com/brayhaven/bj.htm

"There is no character howsoever good and
fine, but it can be destroyed by ridicule
howsoever poor and witless. Observe the
ass, for instance: his character is about
perfect, he is the choicest spirit among all the humbler animals, yet see what
ridicule has brought him to. Instead of feeling
complimented when we are called an ass, we are left in doubt."
Mark Twain, From Pudd'nhead Wilson,
1894


  #181   Report Post  
Carl Nisarel
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee

"JTMcC" wrote

"Carl Nisarel" wrote in message
om...
Gunner wrote

Lott's research amounts to
the largest data set that has ever been put together for any study of
crime, let alone for the study of gun control.


The size of a database is an irrelevant measure of research quality.
Garbage in=garbage out.

Lott's more guns, less crime research has been well-shredded and sent
to the dump where it belongs.

See Ayers & Donohue's articles and Maltz's article, among many others,
which demonstrate that Lott's MGLC research is invalid.


Carl, when your lovely wife, I'm assuming you have a lovely wife, if not you
can fill in the blank with girlfriend, Mom, sis, any person you care deeply
about that doesn't posess great strength and a violent attitude, is
assaulted by a unethical criminal, intent on taking stuff and doing bodily
harm to your loved one, just what would you consider the proper course of
action?


Why do you gunners keep using that irrelevant and idiotic appeal to
emotion fallacy?

You're just demonstrating that you are not intelligent enough to
figure out how to deal with life without a gun.

Your moronic, and unoriginal, retort does not have anything to do with
Lott's invalidated research.
  #182   Report Post  
Ed Huntress
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee

"Bray Haven" wrote in message
...
I appreciate that, Carl, but I think you must have missed a few of my
postings from time to time. g A sanctimonious jackass like Richard may

be
hard to penetrate with facts, so we'll see where that goes.

Ed Huntress


I thought about that too, having seen personal insults hurled by Mr Ed

from
time to time. BTW, as a breeder & trainer of mules, I hate to see that
particular handle used maliciously. A vocation, by the way, which has

helped me
immesely in some of my discussions in this forum ).


My apologies to all jack- and jenny asses of the four-legged type.

Ed Huntress


  #183   Report Post  
Richard Lewis
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee

Carl Byrns wrote:

You know, one of the things I admire about Ed is that he never not
once resorts to insults when he's on the unpopular side of an opinion.
Nor does he try to distort what others have written- he can defend his
position calmly and with solid fact.


There you go again accusing me of "distorting facts" when all I ever
do is address the exact point that you raised, idiot.

Do you somehow, in your infinite wisdom, interpret "yeah, you said
he's a liar and he can't refute it" to be other than an agreement on
the statement?

You, Gunner, and McCracken don't seem to posess those qualities: if
you can't defend your argument you either make something up or start
slingin' the mud.


Don't lump me in with anyone, idiot. Gunner et al will always have
more patience than I in dealing with your pathetic, idiotic arguments.
If you keep the discussion sane and rational, so will I....but I have
no regard for idiots and asses who have to resort to semantics to try
to cover their ass.

Now feel free to **** off and go whine somewhere out of my sight.

ral

PLONK!


-Carl



  #184   Report Post  
Richard Lewis
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

I appreciate that, Carl, but I think you must have missed a few of my
postings from time to time. g A sanctimonious jackass like Richard may be
hard to penetrate with facts, so we'll see where that goes.


I have yet to see a "fact" from you, idiot....even though you have
threatened us all with a ****storm of them time and again. They seem
to be a long time in coming.

Where are they?

ral

Ed Huntress





  #185   Report Post  
Richard Lewis
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee

Bert wrote:

Dang, I didn't think anyone would catch me trying to "technical" my
way through it. Don't I feel silly for placing any credence in
definitions from a fancy store-bought dictionary! After all, those
are written by people who devote their careers to studying words and
how they're used and their meanings and how they evolve and other
useless stuff like that. What do they know? Next time I'll know better
than to trust those yahoos; instead I'll put my faith in Gunner's and
Richard's definitions.


I don't really care what definition you go by, Bert. You don't
reflect on me in any way because I sure as hell didn't instruct you.

An "arsenal" is a place where firearms are constructed or maintained
and an "armory" is a place where they are stored. Doesn't matter what
the public has come to believe. While "armory" may be somewhat
confusing, "arsenal" actually means "house of manufacturing". A
building where arms were stored, at one time, would have been called a
"magazine", but I won't fault you if you pick up your copy of Boy's
Life and hope to argue that one.

ral





  #187   Report Post  
Carl Byrns
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee

On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 12:44:18 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Carl Byrns" wrote in message
.. .

Ed said it was a lie or that Gunner/Ford were crazy which you agreed
with by claiming that he couldn't refute the remark, idiot.

Did you even graduate high school or did you pick up the pussified "I
know you are but what am I?" method of debate from a comic book along
the way?

ral


You know, one of the things I admire about Ed is that he never not
once resorts to insults when he's on the unpopular side of an opinion.
Nor does he try to distort what others have written- he can defend his
position calmly and with solid fact.

You, Gunner, and McCracken don't seem to posess those qualities: if
you can't defend your argument you either make something up or start
slingin' the mud.


I appreciate that, Carl, but I think you must have missed a few of my
postings from time to time. g A sanctimonious jackass like Richard may be
hard to penetrate with facts, so we'll see where that goes.

Ed Huntress


Ed, "sanctimonious jackass" isn't an insult (well, the four legged
kind might be insulted by the association). I've never seen you use
the words f*cking idi*t m*r*n lowl*fe sh*thead pathet*c l*ser in
reference to McCracken or Lewis (I'll cut Gunner some slack here- he
does know a thing or two about machine tools) even though you probably
have shouted the words inside your skull.

-Carl
  #188   Report Post  
Ed Huntress
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee

"Carl Byrns" wrote in message
...

I appreciate that, Carl, but I think you must have missed a few of my
postings from time to time. g A sanctimonious jackass like Richard may

be
hard to penetrate with facts, so we'll see where that goes.

Ed Huntress


Ed, "sanctimonious jackass" isn't an insult (well, the four legged
kind might be insulted by the association).


Hmm. You're a very tolerant guy, Carl. g

I've never seen you use
the words f*cking idi*t m*r*n lowl*fe sh*thead pathet*c l*ser in
reference to McCracken or Lewis (I'll cut Gunner some slack here- he
does know a thing or two about machine tools) even though you probably
have shouted the words inside your skull.


If you see me talk like that, send in the medics.

Ed Huntress


  #189   Report Post  
jim rozen
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee

In article , Carl Byrns says...

You know, one of the things I admire about Ed is that he never not
once resorts to insults when he's on the unpopular side of an opinion.
Nor does he try to distort what others have written- he can defend his
position calmly and with solid fact.


That was very well put and I agree with it.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

  #190   Report Post  
Sunworshiper
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee

On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 11:50:23 +0800, Old Nick
wrote:

On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 20:52:46 GMT, Sunworshiper
wrote something
......and in reply I say!:


The night before last I'm backing up to my house and a guy is at the

snip
he gets all ****y and saying it wasn't him and we should get in a
fight and better yet he should just shoot me ! I just had a feel for
this guy cause he got ****y with me the first time , but if I had'nt
run into him before I'd be very concerned.


This is a troll , right? I'm from Texas and think rifles should be in
the back window of every pick up. I bet if I had one in the window

snip
, guess you've never had a cop pointing a gun at you when your doing
nothing wrong. I have a couple of times and probably 5 times where
they have it un-strapped and their hand on it.


They have stole my
gun, wedding ring, chicks, and others I shouldn't get into .


Cops have stolen them? ANd the other stuff you shouldn't mention?


Yes & yes.

They part way for me
and don't think a thing about a crazy long haired craker who might
just be packing. Fun or satisfying has nothing to do with being safe ,
or shall we say better off than being unarmed.


I could write a book on why I like to have a gun , but that shouldn't
concern anyone else.


Well, it sure concerns ME! You sound like about the best anit-gun
argument I have ever heard allowed out.
************************************************* *** sorry


Well thanks alot . Just because you don't see the world as dangerous
as I do doesn't mean I should feel safe.

I have people approach me at least 2 times a week and sometimes twice
a day 7 days in a row mostly for $ and alot of times I have $1500+ on
me. A couple of months ago this huge black guy comes running across a
parking lot real fast and right up to me as I getting up to the
truck. All bloody , all frantic , and trying to get right up to me to
show me the blood on his hands and arms. I could already see it on
his face , shirt , and pants. He was saying his dog was just run over
intentionally infront of him . All I could think of was to back away
from this guy. Got him to back up and sit down and gave him a cig.
saying yeah yeah yeah and left. Driving away I was thinking of all
the things I should have done differently and then thought of how
someone was jumping on Gunner for training for situations like this.

About 2 weeks ago this mexican drives up to me at a gas station and
askes for money with his wife and two kids in the back seat. I told
him no , and he kept on and on and then asked for a cig. I gave him
one to just go away and then he asked for a light. I gave him my only
lighter and he started to drive away so I snapped the cig. from his
lip and through it on the ground. While he was freaking on that I got
MY lighter from his hand. And then he jumped out of the car after me.
Again I could only back up away from him. I really don't want to get
into it with anyone , I could have hurt this guy bad with my bare
hands, but not that huge black dude.

One would say I should move away from this , but that's not going to
stop the crap from happening in the area. Say I did move , then I
have to worry about say the middle of no where and the local rouge
cops.

In the early '80's I drove 2,000 miles up to Yopper country and just
after the last big town a cop cruses up and hangs on my bumper for a
good 15 mins. and pulls me over. He's like why does someone like you
own a car like this and your going 63 mph in a 55mph with me behind
you , I told him I was at 58 on this old car. He didn't give me a
ticket and then told me close face to face that he will throw me in
jail if he sees me driving around with my out of state plates even
though I told him I would only be in his state about 2 or 3 weeks
tops. I made the mistake of telling my mom that I couldn't stay long
cause I couldn't get near this cops area and she made me change plates
on her. Within 2 weeks I was back in my home state and pulled over
again cause I had a valid inspection sticker with out of state plates.
I told the cop that you can have two but not three different state
tags. I sat there for 1.5 hours and then pulled out my "old" still up
to date plates to match the inspection sticker so that he could find
out who I was and let me on my way. OH, BTW that cop also asked me
how I got a car like that. He freaks that I have my valid plates ( I
already told him why I had to change plates) and then another cop car
comes up. The two whisper to each other and the new cop walks up and
asks "Who are you ? Are you a local Judge's son or something? " I
said "What is it if I am?" That cop spun on his leather soles and got
in his car and left his buddy flat. I got 5 tickets ! The Judge on
the third trip to court cause the cop wouldn't show up on these bogas
charges told me to shut up or I would be thrown in jail and dismissed
it all. I was just uttering a sound when he cut me off. I tossed the
Yopper plates and still had 6 months on my plates.

Robbin Willums put it best as where the cops wear the mirror on the
inside of their glasses.

I know first hand that bad cops are real and not Holly Wood. What
about cops that get BJ's for tickets , code of silence, and many many
others . These are all make believe ? Last week a cop here in town
so anxious to join a chace which was miles away with others on his
tail lost control on a nice highway and slammed into a Merc. and
totaled both cars going way over 120 mph from the looks of it. Yrs.
ago a cop in about the same mode ran a stop sign with no lights or
sirens on killed a chick in a Merc. and ya know they said it was
justifiable... Out of all the shootings that cops do don't you think
its a little weird that almost none are unjustifiable. Even the cop in
SA TX that killed his partner cause he was gonna kill the mayor or the
chief he said (can't remember) was let go.

I can't count the times I've seen cops go through my car like its a
shopping spree. What are you going to do with the law out on the
highway that is stealing from you? Call the cops or shut up and get
out of there? I've had a number of cops tell me that exact story out
on the road ! Maybe if you have a CCW they won't get away with your
gun. Everything else , but not the gun cause they know they will be
caught.


Imagine a _world_ where Nature's lights are obscured
by man's. There would be nowhere to go.
Or wait a while. Then you won't have to imagine.


Ignorance is bliss ? Maybe, until reality kicks you in the face.


  #191   Report Post  
Bray Haven
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee

My apologies to all jack- and jenny asses of the four-legged type.

Ed Huntress


I'll convey that to my ass. I'm sure he'll accept. When he won the national
show, My wife bragged to her friends that her husband had the best ass in
America. She usually added that I show my ass a lot (But I always wash it
first) ).
Greg Sefton
  #192   Report Post  
JTMcC
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee


"Carl Byrns" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 12:44:18 GMT, "Ed Huntress"




Ed, "sanctimonious jackass" isn't an insult (well, the four legged
kind might be insulted by the association). I've never seen you use
the words f*cking idi*t m*r*n lowl*fe sh*thead pathet*c l*ser in
reference to McCracken or Lewis (I'll cut Gunner some slack here- he
does know a thing or two about machine tools) even though you probably
have shouted the words inside your skull.

-Carl


Boy Carl, those are pretty harsh names you are calling me here. Did you
forget your medicine? Your girlfriend dump you today? If you really want to
call me that type of name you can feel free to contact me via telephone or
some other method other than usenet. E mail and I'll give you my phone
number, then you won't have to type those funny looking words, you can speak
your mind like a man. And, I'm pretty sure you know little of my background
or experience with machine tools, not that this is a machine tool newsgroup.

I haven't followed this post much, but I have thrown in two comments, I
stand by both, neither were part of an arguement as far as I can see.

have a good Thursday evening,
JTMcC.






  #194   Report Post  
Dan
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee



--

"Such is the complacency these great men have for the smiles of their prince
that they will gratify every desire of ambition and power at the expense of
truth, reason, and their country."

- John Dickinson, 1771 -

"Richard Lewis" wrote in message
ink.net...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

I appreciate that, Carl, but I think you must have missed a few of my
postings from time to time. g A sanctimonious jackass like Richard may

be
hard to penetrate with facts, so we'll see where that goes.


I have yet to see a "fact" from you, idiot....even though you have
threatened us all with a ****storm of them time and again. They seem
to be a long time in coming.

Where are they?


Right on cue!

Gotta love 'em...

Dan


  #195   Report Post  
Dan
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee



--

"Such is the complacency these great men have for the smiles of their prince
that they will gratify every desire of ambition and power at the expense of
truth, reason, and their country."

- John Dickinson, 1771 -

"Richard Lewis" wrote in message
ink.net...
Carl Byrns wrote:

You know, one of the things I admire about Ed is that he never not
once resorts to insults when he's on the unpopular side of an opinion.
Nor does he try to distort what others have written- he can defend his
position calmly and with solid fact.


There you go again accusing me of "distorting facts" when all I ever
do is address the exact point that you raised, idiot.


Bingo! Another bulls-eye!

Dan




  #196   Report Post  
jim rozen
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee

In article , Tom Quackenbush says...

Springfield Arsenal?

Arsenal or armory?


Dang, might have tripped gunner up on something, regarding
firearms. A first.

The dial indicator that I use on my lathe for carriage
travel was obtained in a junk shop in the boston area,
and on the face of it, in red letters, are the words

"Springfield Armory."

FWIW.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

  #197   Report Post  
michael
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee

Dan wrote:

--

"Such is the complacency these great men have for the smiles of their prince
that they will gratify every desire of ambition and power at the expense of
truth, reason, and their country."

- John Dickinson, 1771 -

"Richard Lewis" wrote in message
ink.net...
(Carl Nisarel) wrote:

Why do you gunners keep using that irrelevant and idiotic appeal to
emotion fallacy?


Idiotic? It happens hundreds of thousands of times a year. If you
don't see that as enough of a reason to answer the question, there's
no hope for you.

ral


Some people live in fear, others live.

Been that way for thousands of years...

The fearful ones buy guns, which may or may not improve their odds,
but does nothing to reduce their fear. In fact, if this group is any
indication,
guns serve to heighten the fear of their owners.

As an aside:

Any one know of any statistics on the rate of gun injuries based on
gun ownership (+/-)? I would think gun owner would, just by proximity,
have more injuries than non-owners, but have no actual information to
backup that hunch. The numbers published by gun enthusiasts do not
address this question, as near as I can tell (I could be wrong).

Dan


Well, here's a start to your requested stats. At age 52 I have not had any gun
injuries. During this half-century of time I at times owned no guns, and most of
the time several. No injuries. Never threatened to kill my spouse(s), my kids,
grandkids, aunts, uncles, or even a couple of very forgettable relatives, though
it could be a blessing I'm thinking.... The closest anyone around me when I was
in possession of a firearm was the dumbass trying to steal the Blaupunkt for my
bud's car, outside the shop at 0330, and his 2 pals. But, alas, I did not
excercise my vile bloodlust that most certainly lurks within, just made him sit
in the car I found him in as the sirens summoned drew closer. Let the other 2
run off as they were not an immediate threat. They did get to be interviewed a
couple hours later, and got some "hotel" time to boot.
So, apply this bit of data toward your hunch.

mj


  #198   Report Post  
Richard Lewis
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee

"JTMcC" wrote:

Boy Carl, those are pretty harsh names you are calling me here.


Not at all, JT. Those are words I've used in relation to the idiot
formerly known as "ed"....

The above poster said that the idiot *hadn't* used them in regards to
you.

ral



  #199   Report Post  
Richard Lewis
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee

"Dan" wrote:

Some people live in fear, others live.


Been that way for thousands of years...


The fearful ones buy guns, which may or may not improve their odds,
but does nothing to reduce their fear. In fact, if this group is any
indication,
guns serve to heighten the fear of their owners.


"The point was, thee was no logical connection between the true part
of the
statement and the conclusion drawn, which is standard technique for
Gunner
and
Rush Limbaugh, to name but two practitioners or the art."

Add your own name to that list there, Dan'l

Back to ignoring you. Sorry.

ral



  #200   Report Post  
Gunner
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee

On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 11:50:23 +0800, Old Nick
wrote:


They have stole my
gun, wedding ring, chicks, and others I shouldn't get into .


Cops have stolen them? ANd the other stuff you shouldn't mention?


The primary reason I left law enforcement was corruption of police
officers in the several agencies I worked with or around. I was not
about to be associated with police officers that routinely shook down
farm workers (they keep their money in their socks), sold drugs, or ran
prostitutes for farm labor camps.

I know a quite a number of instances, where an individual was stopped, a
legal firearm was confiscated for "investigation", and no record was
ever made, nor did the arms ever make it to the station.

While they may be public servants..not all of them are Officer Friendly.
And no..I dont trust many of them, even the ones I know well, I keep an
eye on.

Gunner

The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Barn conversion - how deep should the footings be.....? Simon Hawthorne UK diy 88 January 28th 04 11:50 PM
Deep drawing of aluminum bottle john Metalworking 2 November 8th 03 06:57 AM
Deep hole drill profile question Koz Metalworking 3 October 22nd 03 08:51 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:04 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 DIYbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about DIY & home improvement"