"rigger" wrote


As I've never been on a bird hunt would you mind bringing me (and
perhaps some others) up-to-speed on how it's supposed to work to insure
safety?

First, there is NO insurance that safety procedures will work.

But, it works something like this:

You hunt alone.

If you choose to hunt with someone, it had damn better be with someone you
have hunted with before and know what they will do IN EVERY SITUATION. You
still have to have communication (radios) and a plan of when this happens we
do this. When that happens we do that.
You talk about it before you go out. You talk about it during the hunt.
You talk about it after it is over. You are putting your life in someone
else's hands. You talk about it.

And, as in the case in our state, you either stay far apart enough not to be
able to shoot the other person, or close enough so that you can hear the
other person say, "He's yours" or he can hear you say "He's mine." As close
as ten feet. Before that, however, you have decided that everything to the
left of center is his, everything to the right of center is yours. If you
DO hunt in a line, you have zones of fire. But, bottom line, you are
betting that your buddy who has a gun in his hand is going to follow the
rules and not screw up and cost you your life or at least your eyesight.

Any time you are dicking around out there with things that can kill you, you
have to have a plan, or you just don't go out.

That is what happened to these Rubes.

Hey! Let's go hunting! That sounds like fun!

Doesn't sound to me like any of them had a clue, even though reports say
they were "experienced" hunters, or had been hunting before. I know lots of
guys who have "been hunting before" and I wouldn't go with them if my job
depended on it. And some of them have been hunting for years. I have ONE
person I go quail hunting with. I am asked again and again to go with
people or to take people. I just make excuses because my health and safety
are important to me. I'm funny like that. My buddy and I went six times
this past year in Southern Nevada. I never even had one time that I heard
shot fly by me, which is a common occurrence for most hunters. We got our
**** down and together. And we use the Rino GPS systems.

It all comes down to the hunter. They're the one who pulls the trigger.
For one guy to run up on the shooters, and then another to shoot at an
uncertain target, Holy Mary, pray for us. These people are in charge of our
country.

Steve

"Too_Many_Tools" wrote

And without the proper game fees being paid, they were also
poaching....no surprise when you consider the track record of this
Administration thinking that they are above the laws that govern the
rest of us mere mortals.

Oh, puhleeze. Can we just stick to the subject and not wander off into
"this Administration" crap?


The holder of the gun is ALWAYS responsible for ALL damages, both
financial and physical, caused by the firearm.


So, is it tough being a genius?

While I have no research to cite, in my own personal experiences many
of those who support the use of guns also supposely support gun
responsibility...that is until an incident occurs. It is telling to see
those desparate to do damage control to make excuses, protray the
victum at fault and attempt to deflect responsibility by referencing a
decades old Democratic incident. I would think as an intelligent
citizen you would see through this shame for what it is.


Again, PUHLEEZE!

Owning up to one's personal responsibility is a hallmark of ethical
maturity...and is the minimum that the public should require from its
elected leaders.

I am confused. You make references to "this Administration", yet don't
mention anything about Mary Jo Kopechne.


Time to "walk the talk" boys and girls.


Ayup. We all have toilet paper on our shoes.

TMT

"Th' only news here is that th' DC press corps didn't have this one
handed to 'em on a silver platter while it was still hot, big ****in'
deal. "

"I'd hardly call that poaching. At least, not unless I was trying
desperately hard to find an excuse to be a complete asshole. A clerical

mixup, certainly. But poaching? Gimme a break. "

"I am confused. You make references to "this Administration", yet
don't
mention anything about Mary Jo Kopechne. "

Remember what I said about "excuses"?

There seems to be plenty of them...better reexamine your priorities.

Now it would seem that good old Dick forgot to tell his boss too....I
guess shooting people isn't such a big detail.

As for the possibility of alcohol usage, the unexplained delays we are
seeing in this situation are an excellent way to buy time to let the
alcohol level drop in one's blood stream. Alcohol would explain much in
how did shooting happened.

If I were his boss I would be asking why are we keeping him
around....he's becoming a liability.

TMT

"It all comes down to the hunter. They're the one who pulls the
trigger.
For one guy to run up on the shooters, and then another to shoot at an
uncertain target, Holy Mary, pray for us. These people are in charge
of our
country."

I was thinking of this also.

This "accident" gives the public an unique insight to how actual
"intelligent" those who are running this country really are. When one
reflects how anything this Administration had touched has turned into a
disaster, it really is no surprise that someone got shot.

We really need better people to run for public office.

Then they need to do their job instead of "cutting brush" and "hunting"
on your and my tax dollars.

TMT

"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message
oups.com...
"Th' only news here is that th' DC press corps didn't have this one
handed to 'em on a silver platter while it was still hot, big ****in'
deal. "

"I'd hardly call that poaching. At least, not unless I was trying
desperately hard to find an excuse to be a complete asshole. A clerical

mixup, certainly. But poaching? Gimme a break. "

"I am confused. You make references to "this Administration", yet
don't
mention anything about Mary Jo Kopechne. "

Remember what I said about "excuses"?

There seems to be plenty of them...better reexamine your priorities.

Now it would seem that good old Dick forgot to tell his boss too....I
guess shooting people isn't such a big detail.

As for the possibility of alcohol usage, the unexplained delays we are
seeing in this situation are an excellent way to buy time to let the
alcohol level drop in one's blood stream. Alcohol would explain much in
how did shooting happened.

If I were his boss I would be asking why are we keeping him
around....he's becoming a liability.

TMT


Hoo, Boy!

You been scorin' some good "****" lately, huh?

;-)

I think this story is just getting started...

I would like to know who was paying for this hunting trip and who the
other hunters were...

Considering Congress is undergoing a corruption scandal, I would wager
that the Executive branch has been doing some private dipping too.

TMT

"That covers a lot of different scenarios. Was Cheney drunk? Was he
acting recklessly, with gross violations of safety standards? I want
to have a mental picture of what happened.


You might want that, but if you can't find the needed sources on the
net for
yourself, you don't have the capacity to form a mental image. "

Ig, ignore those who use personal insults to try to detract you from
the issue at hand. You are asking valid questions that many Americans
want answered.

Small minds default to insults when they can't defend their argument.

One only needs to look at the continued low poll numbers for this
Adminstration to see that the public is finally waking up to the fact
that they elected ineffective people to the office who are harming this
great country.

Hopefully that will begin to change in 2006 with a further purge in
2008.

Then Cheney can go hunting on his own time....and take George with him.

TMT

wrote in message
...

It was a ****in' accident fer cryin' out loud. **** happens.
Actually, that happens quite frequently, I have some bird shot in my
neck from a partner who accidently peppered me while we were pheasant
hunting.

The only people to whom it "happens quite frequently" are flaming assholes
who shouldn't be allowed near a gun.

And don't give us any stupid **** about it. I've been hunting for over 40
years, and I can spot the assholes in the field.

--
Ed Huntress

"rigger" wrote in message
ups.com...

Say Ed:

As I've never been on a bird hunt would you mind bringing me (and
perhaps some others) up-to-speed on how it's supposed to work to insure
safety?

If you have three hunters walking in line and one brings down a bird do
the other two hunters just proceed forward? If they do proceed forward
are they obligated to remember there was someone behind them?

Yes, they're obliged to remember that someone is behind them. I doubt if
we'll ever hear the truth about this accident, or whether it was a pile of
bad luck or negligence, but the stories I've heard from Cheney's friends
sound pretty fishy to me.

I was discussing this with another long-experienced hunter today, this one
from Pennsylvania, and we both concluded that something is out of whack. In
my experience, and under my training to train for NRA Safe Hunters, the only
way an accident like that can happen is if everyone makes a mistake. From
what I'm hearing about the "protocols" used in southern Bobwhite quail
hunting, someone can get shot if just ONE person makes a mistake. If that's
their "protocol," then their protocol and their tradition sucks big time.

In general, three hunters in a line, behind dogs flushing quail, requires
paying close attention to the angles where you can swing to follow a bird.
I've never heard of hunters swinging *behind* them as a matter of acceptable
operating procedure -- especially when there are other people out there,
including the dog handler, the SS people, and the owner of the land. I
remember drawing those segments on a board, and the entire range for the
line of hunters was 180 degrees, stopping at a line perpendicular to the
hunters. That's the way I've always hunted. That's the way everyone I've
ever known hunts -- at least, the ones I've seen with a gun.

Bobwhites flush in all directions and you really have to pay attention when
you're out there with other people. Where this lawyer actually was, and how
far around Cheney swung to follow a bird, we may never know. But if the
lawyer was behind that perpendicular line, and if those plantation hunters
think it's OK to swing behind the line, then they're nuts. Don't be
surprised, BTW, if they are a little nuts.

I'd just like to throw in here I imagine the reason for the delay in
reporting the incident was to assure themeless of the judge's
condition. After all the dredging up of the Ted Kennedy thing on this
topic I begin to wonder if they hadn't been considering the possibility
of some type of cover-up if this had gone more sour for the VP. It
might be interesting to know (although I'm sure we never will) who and
how many in the gov. knew about this early on. Got to give the spin
doctors time to work you know.

The only reason to keep this quiet was to make sure all of the political
bases were covered. My guess is that there was more buzzing going on between
Washington and the hunt than a hive full of angry bees.

--
Ed Huntress

"Gus" wrote in message
oups.com...

Ed Huntress wrote:
"Steve B" wrote in message
news:g3SIf.39800$JT.5413@fed1read06...

I won't mention any names, but some of them were even Democrats.

Let's see if we can now deflect attention from the fact that our current
veep, Vice President Strangelove, is probably the most bizarre freak
we've
had in that office in a generation.

As a former NRA Safe Hunter instructor, an NRA- and NY State-certified
rifle
instructor, a hunter for 46 years, and a former DCM range officer, I
have an
opinion about hunting accidents that involve shooting somebody who is
*behind* you. What's your opinion, Steve?

FWIW, most of the time -- not always, but most of the time -- a guy who
shoots somebody in a hunting accident is a boob and a ****-up. This
sounds
like one of those to me. They probably do their quail hunting a little
differently down South but I don't think that shooting your hunting
partner
is part of the routine, is it?

--
Ed Huntress

As a former Marine pistol range instructor, I agree that Mr. Cheney
shouldn't be using a weapon without additional hunter safety training.

Oh, c'mon. That's one old dog. Don't count on him learning new tricks.

It's the "Vice President Strangelove" and "bizarre freak" part that I
don't get.

When he spoke in that soft, reassuring voice about how the Iraqis are going
to treat us as liberators, I thought I was listening to HAL in "2001." ("I'm
sorry, Dave, but I can't do that." g)

"Vice President Strangelove" is a quip from Maureen Dowd. She really loves
the guy...

If you watch Cheney in his interview performances, it's hard not to think of
Peter Sellers in Dr. Strangelove, with his calm, reasonable demeanor, with
his right hand popping up in a "Heil, Hitler" salute and Sellers having to
beat the hand with his other hand to get it down. Under his low-key
exterior, I'm just waiting for Cheney to snap. Maybe he'll jump the couch.

Sounds like something out of a Michael Moore movie.
GW

I wouldn't know, I've never seen a Michael Moore movie. How many Michael
Moore movies have you watched?

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote

The only reason to keep this quiet was to make sure
all of the political bases were covered.
My guess is that there was more buzzing going on between
Washington and the hunt than a hive full of angry bees.


I think your first idea is right. _Something_ needed to be covered up, and
my guess is that it was something totally _unrelated_ to guns or booze.
Like, maybe, the complete roster of the hunting party. I've heard of
Chenney, his victim, and a former ambassador to Switzerland. Was someone
else there? Maybe someone whose presence, if publicized, would be even
_more_ politically embarassing than Deadeye Dick's rimshot?

Your second notion may be right, too. But if the story _is_ as
plain-vanilla as we've been told, it seems all too likely that Dick's
delusions of adequacy simply outweighed his respect for the Constitutional
pecking order. Cheney has always considered himself Dubya's minder, and a
little hunting accident wasn't going to change that.

-- TP

In article t,
Lew Hartswick wrote:

[...]

That covers a lot of different scenarios. Was Cheney drunk? Was he
acting recklessly, with gross violations of safety standards? I want
to have a mental picture of what happened.

i
Acording to ABC (is that liberal enough?) the guy shot had gone out
in front to check or retrieve a bird, he was comming back toward
Cheney with the sun at his back (in Cheneys eyes) when another
covey flushed and Cheney took a shot at them.
I use to hunt a lot and it sounds like it was at least half the
other guys fault. He shouldnt have gone in front of the line to
look for a bird. The sun in Cheneys eyes made it easier for the
accident to happen.
...lew...

I'm no hunter, but I had always assumed there was kind of an implied
rule to not shoot unless you knew where your buddies were. Is it common
practice for hunters to split up and continue hunting without knowing
where the others are?

--
B.B. --I am not a goat! thegoat4 at airmail dot net

On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 00:39:24 -0500, "tonyp"
wrote:


snip
I think your first idea is right. _Something_ needed to be covered up, and
my guess is that it was something totally _unrelated_ to guns or booze.
Like, maybe, the complete roster of the hunting party. I've heard of
Chenney, his victim, and a former ambassador to Switzerland. Was someone
else there? Maybe someone whose presence, if publicized, would be even
_more_ politically embarassing than Deadeye Dick's rimshot?

snip

-- TP


Now THAT's the kind of thinking I like!

Let's see - Saudi Prince? Halliburton VP? French Ambassador? Iragi
insider? Iranian turncoat? Israeli scientist?

Watch out TonyP, they WILL be out to get you if you keep on seeing
thru the smoke and mirrors like that.

Karl P

k.pearson wrote:
On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 00:39:24 -0500, "tonyp"
wrote:


snip
I think your first idea is right. _Something_ needed to be covered up, and
my guess is that it was something totally _unrelated_ to guns or booze.
Like, maybe, the complete roster of the hunting party. I've heard of
Chenney, his victim, and a former ambassador to Switzerland. Was someone
else there? Maybe someone whose presence, if publicized, would be even
_more_ politically embarassing than Deadeye Dick's rimshot?

snip

-- TP


Now THAT's the kind of thinking I like!

Let's see - Saudi Prince? Halliburton VP? French Ambassador? Iragi
insider? Iranian turncoat? Israeli scientist?


The hunting party probably included a space alien from the mother ship.
Do do do do....

Watch out TonyP, they WILL be out to get you if you keep on seeing
thru the smoke and mirrors like that.

Karl P

wrote:
snip
I think your first idea is right. _Something_ needed to be covered up,
and
my guess is that it was something totally _unrelated_ to guns or booze.


I totally agree.

Some very interesting concepts have been brought up by the press:

That Cheney shot the lawyer to send a message go Scooter Libby that he
better not squeal.

That the lawyer has information about Roswell that he was going to leak.

That Cheney was out of lawyer jokes, and had to do SOMETHING.

That it was to draw the attention away from Iraq.

That Cheney was suspecting an affair between the lawyer and Cheney's dog.

Oh, there's a lot more. And there will be a lot more.

Don't you love having a "press" that is interested in the facts of who,
what, why, when and how instead of just sensationalism?

I sure do.

Steve

Richard Lamb wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:

"Richard Lamb" wrote in message
hlink.net...

None of those points are relevant. The single relevant concept here is
"Hunter shot Buddy.". It doesn't matter in the least whether
"Hunter" is

Hunter shot Buddy?

Gunner? Are you still with us?

Ed! Why? I thought you guys were only debating!

g I think of Gunner as a backstop, not as a target...

--
Ed Huntress


Yeah right!
Let's see how this story plays out in 12 hours...
bg

Richard


Ok, Mister, it has been several days and not a single peep from Gunner!

In emergency session Congress has approved $12 million to investigate
this incident.

Come on, Ed. 'Fess up!
Where's the body?

bfg

Richard

"Spehro Pefhany" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 08:51:52 -0800, the renowned "Steve B"
wrote:



wrote:
snip
I think your first idea is right. _Something_ needed to be covered up,
and
my guess is that it was something totally _unrelated_ to guns or booze.


I totally agree.

Some very interesting concepts have been brought up by the press:

That Cheney shot the lawyer to send a message go Scooter Libby that he
better not squeal.

That the lawyer has information about Roswell that he was going to leak.

That Cheney was out of lawyer jokes, and had to do SOMETHING.

That it was to draw the attention away from Iraq.

That Cheney was suspecting an affair between the lawyer and Cheney's dog.

Oh, there's a lot more. And there will be a lot more.

Don't you love having a "press" that is interested in the facts of who,
what, why, when and how instead of just sensationalism?

I sure do.

Steve

Are any of those concepts/jokes actually from the "press" ? I suspect
the only press they own is a garlic press.



Actually, two of them are from the "press". The others will be released
when they wear out these two. This could go on for years.

I hear there is a team that is now trying to prove the Republicans are
implicated in the Jimmy Hoffa and Mary Jo Kopechne cases, and that they have
been working on every other unsolved case trying to link them to the evil
Republicans.

Check The National Enquirer or Star to keep up to speed.

Or just keep reading the "reports" here from the "reporters" here.

Remember, if it's on Usenet, it HAS to be the truth! Otherwise, they
wouldn't let it be printed.

Just like TV news.

Steve

On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 08:51:52 -0800, the renowned "Steve B"
wrote:



wrote:
snip
I think your first idea is right. _Something_ needed to be covered up,
and
my guess is that it was something totally _unrelated_ to guns or booze.


I totally agree.

Some very interesting concepts have been brought up by the press:

That Cheney shot the lawyer to send a message go Scooter Libby that he
better not squeal.

That the lawyer has information about Roswell that he was going to leak.

That Cheney was out of lawyer jokes, and had to do SOMETHING.

That it was to draw the attention away from Iraq.

That Cheney was suspecting an affair between the lawyer and Cheney's dog.

Oh, there's a lot more. And there will be a lot more.

Don't you love having a "press" that is interested in the facts of who,
what, why, when and how instead of just sensationalism?

I sure do.

Steve

Are any of those concepts/jokes actually from the "press" ? I suspect
the only press they own is a garlic press.

Steve B wrote:

wrote:
snip
I think your first idea is right. _Something_ needed to be covered up,
and
my guess is that it was something totally _unrelated_ to guns or booze.


I totally agree.

Some very interesting concepts have been brought up by the press:

That Cheney shot the lawyer to send a message go Scooter Libby that he
better not squeal.

That the lawyer has information about Roswell that he was going to leak.

That Cheney was out of lawyer jokes, and had to do SOMETHING.

All very funny but does anyone know if a regular (real) investigation
was held? I'd especially be interested if they had argued before the
shooting. Perhaps a little look into possible financial dealings
between them? Etc.?

I'm sure giving Cheney a pass on the quail stamp because he had a good
excuse was justified because I'm sure this is the same treatment
everyone gets. This same "excuse" theory won't (or shouldn't) hold
up, however, in hindering the investigation of a shooting incident.
IMHO

dennis
in nca

dennis
in nca

That it was to draw the attention away from Iraq.

That Cheney was suspecting an affair between the lawyer and Cheney's dog.

Oh, there's a lot more. And there will be a lot more.

Don't you love having a "press" that is interested in the facts of who,
what, why, when and how instead of just sensationalism?

I sure do.

Steve

Richard Lamb wrote:
Richard Lamb wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:

"Richard Lamb" wrote in message
hlink.net...

None of those points are relevant. The single relevant concept here is
"Hunter shot Buddy.". It doesn't matter in the least whether
"Hunter" is

Hunter shot Buddy?

Gunner? Are you still with us?

Ed! Why? I thought you guys were only debating!

g I think of Gunner as a backstop, not as a target...

I think he goes out to do his Mad Max thing during the week.

dennis
in nca

--
Ed Huntress


Yeah right!
Let's see how this story plays out in 12 hours...
bg

Richard


Ok, Mister, it has been several days and not a single peep from Gunner!

In emergency session Congress has approved $12 million to investigate
this incident.

Come on, Ed. 'Fess up!
Where's the body?

bfg

Richard

Steve B wrote:
snipped

Actually, two of them are from the "press". The others will be released
when they wear out these two. This could go on for years.

I hear there is a team that is now trying to prove the Republicans are
implicated in the Jimmy Hoffa and Mary Jo Kopechne cases, and that they have
been working on every other unsolved case trying to link them to the evil
Republicans.

Check The National Enquirer or Star to keep up to speed.

Or just keep reading the "reports" here from the "reporters" here.

Remember, if it's on Usenet, it HAS to be the truth! Otherwise, they
wouldn't let it be printed.

Just like TV news.

Steve


Come on, Steve, let's not malign the National Enquirer!
I still have hopes of having a secret love affair someday and
reading all about it in the Enquirer.

Richard

"Steve B" wrote

Actually, two of them are from the "press".


Which two?


I hear there is a team that is now trying to prove
the Republicans are implicated in the Jimmy Hoffa
and Mary Jo Kopechne cases, and that they have
been working on every other unsolved case trying
to link them to the evil Republicans.


You seem _very_ well informed.

-- TP

"Richard Lamb" wrote in message
hlink.net...
Richard Lamb wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:

"Richard Lamb" wrote in message
hlink.net...

None of those points are relevant. The single relevant concept here
is
"Hunter shot Buddy.". It doesn't matter in the least whether
"Hunter" is

Hunter shot Buddy?

Gunner? Are you still with us?

Ed! Why? I thought you guys were only debating!

g I think of Gunner as a backstop, not as a target...

--
Ed Huntress


Yeah right!
Let's see how this story plays out in 12 hours...
bg

Richard


Ok, Mister, it has been several days and not a single peep from Gunner!

In emergency session Congress has approved $12 million to investigate
this incident.

Come on, Ed. 'Fess up!
Where's the body?

bfg

Richard

Hey, don't blame me. There's any number of people who might have done it.

--
Ed Huntress

"Richard Lamb" wrote

Come on, Steve, let's not malign the National Enquirer!
I still have hopes of having a secret love affair someday and
reading all about it in the Enquirer.

Richard

Actually, I find The Enquirer FAR more credible than CBS News.

Steve

"Steve B" wrote in message
news:NRuJf.17799$MJ.5488@fed1read07...

"Richard Lamb" wrote

Come on, Steve, let's not malign the National Enquirer!
I still have hopes of having a secret love affair someday and
reading all about it in the Enquirer.

Richard

Actually, I find The Enquirer FAR more credible than CBS News.

Steve

Steve, that explains more than you may realize. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
"Steve B" wrote in message
news:NRuJf.17799$MJ.5488@fed1read07...

"Richard Lamb" wrote

Come on, Steve, let's not malign the National Enquirer!
I still have hopes of having a secret love affair someday and
reading all about it in the Enquirer.

Richard

Actually, I find The Enquirer FAR more credible than CBS News.

Steve

Steve, that explains more than you may realize. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress



Ed, you are just too deep for me. I don't have a clue what that means.

Steve

"Steve B" wrote in message
news:XpwJf.17807$MJ.16342@fed1read07...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
"Steve B" wrote in message
news:NRuJf.17799$MJ.5488@fed1read07...

"Richard Lamb" wrote

Come on, Steve, let's not malign the National Enquirer!
I still have hopes of having a secret love affair someday and
reading all about it in the Enquirer.

Richard

Actually, I find The Enquirer FAR more credible than CBS News.

Steve

Steve, that explains more than you may realize. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress



Ed, you are just too deep for me. I don't have a clue what that means.

Steve

Yeah, I had a feeling that might be the case.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
"Steve B" wrote in message
news:XpwJf.17807$MJ.16342@fed1read07...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
"Steve B" wrote in message
news:NRuJf.17799$MJ.5488@fed1read07...

"Richard Lamb" wrote

Come on, Steve, let's not malign the National Enquirer!
I still have hopes of having a secret love affair someday and
reading all about it in the Enquirer.

Richard

Actually, I find The Enquirer FAR more credible than CBS News.

Steve

Steve, that explains more than you may realize. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress



Ed, you are just too deep for me. I don't have a clue what that means.

Steve

Yeah, I had a feeling that might be the case.

--
Ed Huntress



Yet you hang on my every word.

You follow me like a shadow.

You reply every time I post.

What's up with that?

And, you talk in a code that only you understand. Do you always babble to
yourself like this? Perhaps if you write complete sentences and thoughts,
you might allow someone else into the conversation.

But I doubt it. You have no desire for discourse, but only to hear your own
irrational pompous thoughts. You apparently think that you are somehow
superior to the unwashed rabble here. So superior that you refuse to even
clarify your ambiguous spew.

Rave on, Ed.

plonk

Steve

"Steve B" wrote in message
news:YEwJf.17808$MJ.119@fed1read07...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
"Steve B" wrote in message
news:XpwJf.17807$MJ.16342@fed1read07...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
"Steve B" wrote in message
news:NRuJf.17799$MJ.5488@fed1read07...

"Richard Lamb" wrote

Come on, Steve, let's not malign the National Enquirer!
I still have hopes of having a secret love affair someday and
reading all about it in the Enquirer.

Richard

Actually, I find The Enquirer FAR more credible than CBS News.

Steve

Steve, that explains more than you may realize. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress



Ed, you are just too deep for me. I don't have a clue what that means.

Steve

Yeah, I had a feeling that might be the case.

--
Ed Huntress



Yet you hang on my every word.

Eh, I think they hang pretty well on their own -- from lamp posts, mostly.
d8-)


You follow me like a shadow.

Don't flatter yourself. You keep showing up in the middle of threads, like a
road apple. I have to watch where I step to avoid you.


You reply every time I post.

Only when you post something that's a sweeping or gratuitous insult. Then
it's worth sticking something sharp in there, to let out some of the gas. As
it happens, that's more than half of your posts.


What's up with that?

See above.


And, you talk in a code that only you understand. Do you always babble to
yourself like this? Perhaps if you write complete sentences and thoughts,
you might allow someone else into the conversation.

I'm sure that 90% of the people here understand perfectly well what I mean.
The other 10% tend to be lost in the labyrinths of their own imaginations.


But I doubt it. You have no desire for discourse, but only to hear your
own
irrational pompous thoughts. You apparently think that you are somehow
superior to the unwashed rabble here. So superior that you refuse to even
clarify your ambiguous spew.

There is a small group of all-purpose malcontents here, with foul attitudes
and foul mouths, who tend to be abusive to people and then to accuse others
of abuse when a small amount of it is reflected back upon them. They tend to
dish it out in a big way but to have very thin skins...


plonk

....like that.

--
Ed Huntress

John R. Carroll wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:

"Steve B" wrote in message
news:YEwJf.17808$MJ.119@fed1read07...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Steve B" wrote in message
news:XpwJf.17807$MJ.16342@fed1read07...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Steve B" wrote in message
news:NRuJf.17799$MJ.5488@fed1read07...

"Richard Lamb" wrote


plonk

...like that.


LOL
8-)


HEY! What what-the-heck did I do?
Or did the latest issue of Enquirer mention me?

Richard

Richard Lamb wrote:
John R. Carroll wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:

"Steve B" wrote in message
news:YEwJf.17808$MJ.119@fed1read07...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Steve B" wrote in message
news:XpwJf.17807$MJ.16342@fed1read07...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Steve B" wrote in message
news:NRuJf.17799$MJ.5488@fed1read07...

"Richard Lamb" wrote


plonk

...like that.


LOL
8-)


HEY! What what-the-heck did I do?
Or did the latest issue of Enquirer mention me?

Unless you are Brittney Spears they didn't :)
You aren't are you? LOL
I was responding to Ed's reply to Steve so the answer to your question is -
nothing.
Unless your Brittney.


--
John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
Los Angeles San Francisco
www.machiningsolution.com

John R. Carroll wrote:

Richard Lamb wrote:

John R. Carroll wrote:


Ed Huntress wrote:


"Steve B" wrote in message
news:YEwJf.17808$MJ.119@fed1read07...


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...


"Steve B" wrote in message
news:XpwJf.17807$MJ.16342@fed1read07...


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...


"Steve B" wrote in message
news:NRuJf.17799$MJ.5488@fed1read07...


"Richard Lamb" wrote


plonk

...like that.


LOL
8-)



HEY! What what-the-heck did I do?
Or did the latest issue of Enquirer mention me?


Unless you are Brittney Spears they didn't :)
You aren't are you? LOL
I was responding to Ed's reply to Steve so the answer to your question is -
nothing.
Unless your Brittney.


Not MY Brittney.
Not my type.

I'm holding out for someone who can carry on a conversation...

Richard

"I know we have to talk afterwards, so I'm looking for a woman
who gives good "mind", if you know what I mean".
Robin Williams

"Richard Lamb" wrote

HEY! What what-the-heck did I do?
Or did the latest issue of Enquirer mention me?

Richard

I think that I'd rather be in the Enquirer than on the cover of The Rolling
Stone.

Steve

On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 02:44:53 GMT, Richard Lamb
wrote:



None of those points are relevant. The single relevant concept here is
"Hunter shot Buddy.". It doesn't matter in the least whether "Hunter" is


Hunter shot Buddy?

Gunner? Are you still with us?

Chuckle..If I had been the shooter..there would be no wounded
individual.


Ed! Why? I thought you guys were only debating!



"A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them;
the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences."
- Proverbs 22:3

On 15 Feb 2006 14:15:42 GMT, Ignoramus7443
wrote:

On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 23:34:27 -0600, Andy Asberry wrote:
On 14 Feb 2006 21:52:31 GMT, Ignoramus21707
wrote:

Can anyone explain just what happened. Who was where, who arrived
when, who drank what before, who was wearing what color clothes,
etc. Was it an "accidental discharge", or was Cheney intending to
shoot where he shot.

i

This is what I've read in two newspaper articles and on the net.

There were 3 hunters plus the land owner, who was not hunting, in the
hunting party. (Plus, I assume, numerous Secret Service agents and the
ambulance attendants that were said to be standing by due to Cheney's
health problems.)

According to the land owner, Whittington had shot a bird and had gone
into some tall grass to retrieve it. He was rejoining the others who
had gone on ahead. At this time, another covey flushed and Cheney was
swinging on a bird that flew to his rear. The bird was in line with
Whittington as Cheney fired. He was hit in the cheek, neck and chest.

A preliminary sheriff's report stated that neither drugs nor alcohol
were a factor. All of the hunters were wearing orange vests. The
distance from Cheney to Whittington was 30 yards. Cheney had a
non-resident Texas hunting license but did not have the Upland Game
Bird Stamp. He was issued a citation and bought the $7.00 stamp.

I've been peppered with birdshot before. It stings but only once did
it penetrate the skin. And I realize the skin of a 78 year old is much
thinner. I set out to find some information on shotgun ballistics.

Remember that with birdshot, smaller pellets have higher numbers.
Number 6 shot is twice the weight of number 8 shot. Typical shot sizes
for quail are 7 1/2, 8 and 9. I picked number 8 for my research
because it is the middle size.

Most of the info came from gunshot forensic sites.

Number 6 was the smallest size pellet listed. An individual pellet has
a muzzle energy of 3 ft/lbs. It will penetrate ballistic gelatin
(equivalent to human flesh) 4 to 6 inches at a range of 5 yards. Since
a number 8 is half the weight of number 6, it would have 1.5 ft/lbs of
energy.

What I could not find was the velocity at 30 yards. The muzzle
velocity is about 1200 ft/sec. The drag coefficient of a sphere at
this speed is about 1.27. Maybe someone can calculate the downrange
speed and therefore the remaining energy at 30 yards.

I did find some state wildlife statistics that said only 42% of birds
would be hit and only 10% of birds HIT at that range would die.

Depending on the choke of Cheney's gun, up to 187 pellets could be
expected to hit in a 30 inch circle at 30 yards. That jives with the
doctor's estimate of 200 hitting Whittington. Probably less because no
man can cover a 30 inch circle with his body.

Thanks Andy. I am very confused. How can birdshot, at a distance of 30
yards, penetrate Whittington so deeply. It does not make sense to
me. My shotgun experience is very limited, as I rarely shoot my
shotgun and usually shoot rifles.

i

Deeply? Id be terribly surprised if there was .5" penetration on
direct impact with skin at 30 yrds.

Gunner



"A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them;
the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences."
- Proverbs 22:3

On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 17:36:19 -0800, "Steve B"
wrote:


"Richard Lamb" wrote

Come on, Steve, let's not malign the National Enquirer!
I still have hopes of having a secret love affair someday and
reading all about it in the Enquirer.

Richard

Actually, I find The Enquirer FAR more credible than CBS News.

Steve

Actually..a number of studies have show the Enquirer to be MUCH more
accurate than any of the major Media..CBS etc

Gunner



"A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them;
the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences."
- Proverbs 22:3

Richard Lamb wrote:
John R. Carroll wrote:

Richard Lamb wrote:

John R. Carroll wrote:


Ed Huntress wrote:


"Steve B" wrote in message
news:YEwJf.17808$MJ.119@fed1read07...


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...


"Steve B" wrote in message
news:XpwJf.17807$MJ.16342@fed1read07...


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...


"Steve B" wrote in message
news:NRuJf.17799$MJ.5488@fed1read07...


"Richard Lamb" wrote


plonk

...like that.


LOL
8-)



HEY! What what-the-heck did I do?
Or did the latest issue of Enquirer mention me?


Unless you are Brittney Spears they didn't :)
You aren't are you? LOL
I was responding to Ed's reply to Steve so the answer to your
question is - nothing.
Unless your Brittney.


Not MY Brittney.
Not my type.

I'm holding out for someone who can carry on a conversation...


I know what you mean. She's got nothin' on you're average door knob.
It only takes one thing to entertain 15 year old boys though and that ain't
brains.


--
John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
Los Angeles San Francisco
www.machiningsolution.com

Steve B wrote:
Come on, Steve, let's not malign the National Enquirer!
I still have hopes of having a secret love affair someday and
reading all about it in the Enquirer.

Richard

Actually, I find The Enquirer FAR more credible than CBS News.

Steve

Steve, that explains more than you may realize. d8-)

Ed Huntress

Ed, you are just too deep for me. I don't have a clue what that means.

Steve

Yeah, I had a feeling that might be the case.
-
Ed Huntress

Yet you hang on my every word.

You follow me like a shadow.

You reply every time I post.

What's up with that?

And, you talk in a code that only you understand. Do you always babble to
yourself like this? Perhaps if you write complete sentences and thoughts,
you might allow someone else into the conversation.

Rave on, Ed.

plonk

Steve

I think most of the readers understand what Ed is trying to tell you. :-)
...lew...

Gunner wrote:

On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 02:44:53 GMT, Richard Lamb
wrote:


None of those points are relevant. The single relevant concept here is
"Hunter shot Buddy.". It doesn't matter in the least whether "Hunter" is


Hunter shot Buddy?

Gunner? Are you still with us?


Chuckle..If I had been the shooter..there would be no wounded
individual.


Ed! Why? I thought you guys were only debating!


Well, I guess I'm glad to see ya back and ok.
But it ruins my neat little conspiracy theory...

"Lew Hartswick" wrote in message
k.net...
Steve B wrote:
Come on, Steve, let's not malign the National Enquirer!
I still have hopes of having a secret love affair someday and
reading all about it in the Enquirer.

Richard

Actually, I find The Enquirer FAR more credible than CBS News.

Steve

Steve, that explains more than you may realize. d8-)

Ed Huntress

Ed, you are just too deep for me. I don't have a clue what that means.

Steve

Yeah, I had a feeling that might be the case.
-
Ed Huntress

Yet you hang on my every word.

You follow me like a shadow.

You reply every time I post.

What's up with that?

And, you talk in a code that only you understand. Do you always babble
to yourself like this? Perhaps if you write complete sentences and
thoughts, you might allow someone else into the conversation.

Rave on, Ed.

plonk

Steve
I think most of the readers understand what Ed is trying to tell you. :-)
...lew...

That's a good thing. I find Ed to be a boorish pseudointellectual.

Steve