"Ignoramus7685" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 10:51:03 GMT, Gunner wrote:
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.

And yet, the press reported that the birdshot was close to his heart.

I think that there is a goood possibility that two things were not as
reported:

1) Cheney was a lot closer to Whittington than 30 yards
2) He was a lot more drunk that he led us to believe

i

Funny, if you said that about anyone other than a well known public person
you would find yourself slapped with a slander lawsuit quicker than you can
blink your eyes. Where's your evidence?

Ignoramus7685 wrote:
I think that there is a goood possibility that two things were not as
reported:

1) Cheney was a lot closer to Whittington than 30 yards
2) He was a lot more drunk that he led us to believe


I think, therefore I imagine.

"Tm" wrote in message
...

"Ignoramus7685" wrote in message
...

I think that there is a goood possibility that two things were not as
reported:

1) Cheney was a lot closer to Whittington than 30 yards
2) He was a lot more drunk that he led us to believe

i

Funny, if you said that about anyone other than a well known public person
you would find yourself slapped with a slander lawsuit quicker than you
can
blink your eyes.

Ah, no, he wouldn't. He made clear it was his opinion, a "good possibility."
He didn't state that it was a documented fact.

That's not slander. That's clearly an opinion. You can have opinions. You
just can't make claims of fact that are false and damaging.

Where's your evidence?

He doesn't need any. He made clear he was expressing an opinion, inductive
reasoning from certain facts. That's how most people reason most of the
time. It's not a claim that it's certain, it's just his opinion that it's "a
good possibility."

--
Ed Huntress

On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 14:33:38 GMT, Ignoramus7685
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 10:51:03 GMT, Gunner wrote:
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.

And yet, the press reported that the birdshot was close to his heart.

I think that there is a goood possibility that two things were not as
reported:

1) Cheney was a lot closer to Whittington than 30 yards
2) He was a lot more drunk that he led us to believe

i

You are contridicting the report from the local sheriffs department
and all witnesses. Your evidence is what again?

Put your finger in the middle of your chest. Feel threatened? Your
finger nail is about 1.5" away from your heart.

The single piece of shot that entered his heart, entered through a
shallow vein. Blood moves to and from the heart in veins and vessels.
a tiny piece of shot gets carried right along.

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 Sat, 18 Feb 2006 10:03:32 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
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

Right. They really know where Nostradamus lives, for example. And they're
always first to report a Mom® toasting a Tot®.

Between National Enquirer and Fox News, the right wing is well-fed with
vital and accurate information.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Enquirer

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 Sat, 18 Feb 2006 09:34:59 -0800, "Steve B"
wrote:


"Lew Hartswick" wrote in message
nk.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

I dont consider him to be pseudo.

Gunner



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

"Ignoramus7685" wrote in message
...
On 18 Feb 2006 11:15:46 -0800, Gus wrote:

Ignoramus7685 wrote:
I think that there is a goood possibility that two things were not as
reported:

1) Cheney was a lot closer to Whittington than 30 yards
2) He was a lot more drunk that he led us to believe


I think, therefore I imagine.


Try a little experiment: buy a piece of pork, cover it with a old T
shirt, and shoot at it with a shotgun loaded with birdshot from 30
yards. Get back to us and report on penetration.

This was an old Texas Republican. I think a slab of pecky cypress would be
more lifelike.

--
Ed Huntress

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 10:03:32 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
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

Right. They really know where Nostradamus lives, for example. And they're
always first to report a Mom® toasting a Tot®.

Between National Enquirer and Fox News, the right wing is well-fed with
vital and accurate information.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Enquirer

Gunner

What's that again? Have you forfeited your brain to the Wikis these days?
g

What does the Wikipoo have to say about it?

BTW, I knew a photographer who worked for the Enquirer, before he went
legit. His photos, he said, were best thought of as raw material from which
their art department created various kinds of fictions. They were some of
the best Photoshop users on the planet, and before Photoshop they were using
heavy-duty image-editing programs on minicomputers.

They could put boobs on a five-year-old and make you believe it.

--
Ed Huntress

In article ,
says...
On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 10:03:32 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


Between National Enquirer and Fox News, the right wing is well-fed with
vital and accurate information.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Enquirer


A perfect example of why at my son's HS the students must submit
internet sources for approval before using them as primary sources in
research papers and are *never* allowed to cite wikipedia.

Ned Simmons

"Ned Simmons" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 10:03:32 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


Between National Enquirer and Fox News, the right wing is well-fed with
vital and accurate information.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Enquirer


A perfect example of why at my son's HS the students must submit
internet sources for approval before using them as primary sources in
research papers and are *never* allowed to cite wikipedia.

Ned Simmons

In my son's classes, they aren't allowed to use encyclopedias as sources at
all, including Britannica. And they're only allowed to use Internet sources
for one or two references, from a requirement, typically, of five to seven.

It's a real double-edged sword, and Gunner is a good example of what happens
on the backswing. g You can find fantastic amounts of information but you
already have to know something going in to judge the sources. Otherwise
you're a victim of noise and intentionally misleading nonsense.

One poster here last week used two sources for a fairly heavy-duty point
about comparative politics: Wikipedia's superficial gloss, and a blog essay
by a guy identified only as "Bob P" or something like that. g

The bloggers are finding plenty of suckers to lead around by the nose.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ignoramus7685" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 14:12:03 -0500, Tm wrote:
And yet, the press reported that the birdshot was close to his heart.

I think that there is a goood possibility that two things were not as
reported:

1) Cheney was a lot closer to Whittington than 30 yards
2) He was a lot more drunk that he led us to believe

i

Funny, if you said that about anyone other than a well known public
person
you would find yourself slapped with a slander lawsuit quicker than you
can
blink your eyes. Where's your evidence?

Actually, defamation is a false statement of a material fact that
tends to damage reputation of a person. A saying such as "I think that
there is a good possibility that ..." never amounts to a "statement
of a material fact".


Fair enough. You have no facts and are just expressing an opinion.
And you know what thay say about opinions.

tm

I thought these t-shirts about Cheney hunting were hilarious.


http://www.cafepress.com/********tees/


Sean
http://www.DigFishDig.com

In article ,
says...
"Ned Simmons" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 10:03:32 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


Between National Enquirer and Fox News, the right wing is well-fed with
vital and accurate information.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Enquirer


A perfect example of why at my son's HS the students must submit
internet sources for approval before using them as primary sources in
research papers and are *never* allowed to cite wikipedia.

Ned Simmons

In my son's classes, they aren't allowed to use encyclopedias as sources at
all, including Britannica. And they're only allowed to use Internet sources
for one or two references, from a requirement, typically, of five to seven.

The rules are virtually the same at my son's school. I just found it
interesting that wikipedia was the only source proscribed specifically
by name. But not surprising knowing where the guidelines likely
originated. The head of the history department is a blind, middle aged
woman who, rumor has it, was once a prosecuting attorney and commands
the respect and affection of the entire school. To say that she takes
her subject seriously would be a huge understatement.


It's a real double-edged sword, and Gunner is a good example of what happens
on the backswing. g You can find fantastic amounts of information but you
already have to know something going in to judge the sources. Otherwise
you're a victim of noise and intentionally misleading nonsense.

Of course that assumes you're actually looking for good information and
not simply trying to bolster some preconceived notion. The internet has
sure made the latter much easier than the former.

Ned Simmons

Ned Simmons wrote:

snipped out a rally great reply...

Of course that assumes you're actually looking for good information and
not simply trying to bolster some preconceived notion. The internet has
sure made the latter much easier than the former.

Ned Simmons

The term I once heard was "webidence".

"Steve B" wrote in message
news:AUIJf.389$_87.66@fed1read06...

"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.

WELL! I never. g

Keep lashing out, Steve. Maybe it will buy you some time to change your
endless insults and snotty dismissiveness of anyone who doesn't agree with
you. You can always hope that people will forget, but don't count on the
targets of your insults forgetting soon.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ned Simmons" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
"Ned Simmons" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 10:03:32 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


Between National Enquirer and Fox News, the right wing is well-fed
with
vital and accurate information.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Enquirer


A perfect example of why at my son's HS the students must submit
internet sources for approval before using them as primary sources in
research papers and are *never* allowed to cite wikipedia.

Ned Simmons

In my son's classes, they aren't allowed to use encyclopedias as sources
at
all, including Britannica. And they're only allowed to use Internet
sources
for one or two references, from a requirement, typically, of five to
seven.

The rules are virtually the same at my son's school. I just found it
interesting that wikipedia was the only source proscribed specifically
by name.

Yeah, that's interesting. I hadn't heard that one but my son is at the age
(18) where I don't hear much from him about what's going on at school. He
had his last personal college interview today and it was like pulling teeth
to find out how it went.

But not surprising knowing where the guidelines likely
originated. The head of the history department is a blind, middle aged
woman who, rumor has it, was once a prosecuting attorney and commands
the respect and affection of the entire school. To say that she takes
her subject seriously would be a huge understatement.


It's a real double-edged sword, and Gunner is a good example of what
happens
on the backswing. g You can find fantastic amounts of information but
you
already have to know something going in to judge the sources. Otherwise
you're a victim of noise and intentionally misleading nonsense.

Of course that assumes you're actually looking for good information and
not simply trying to bolster some preconceived notion. The internet has
sure made the latter much easier than the former.

That's true, but many people are left floundering even if they're trying to
educate themselves. We're seeing the results of not having a canon, and no
syllabus, and then trying to learn on one's own. Canons and syllabi are
disparaged for being confining, and there's some truth to it. But the
opposite is much worse. It's like being thrown into a maelstrom. We see it
here, and all over the Internet, all the time.

--
Ed Huntress

Not IN his heart - on the outside. It was in the loose material near the muscle.

Martin
Martin Eastburn
@ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net
NRA LOH & Endowment Member
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder



wayne mak wrote:
Not good, he has a pellet in his heart, not a joking matter as Jeb Bush and
Scott McClellan have made jokes of the shooting.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

There is something like keeping your opinion to your self.
If it is found an opinion is damaging - just cause was shown.

Martin
Martin Eastburn
@ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net
NRA LOH & Endowment Member
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder



Ed Huntress wrote:
"Tm" wrote in message
...

"Ignoramus7685" wrote in message
. ..

I think that there is a goood possibility that two things were not as
reported:

1) Cheney was a lot closer to Whittington than 30 yards
2) He was a lot more drunk that he led us to believe

i

Funny, if you said that about anyone other than a well known public person
you would find yourself slapped with a slander lawsuit quicker than you

can

blink your eyes.


Ah, no, he wouldn't. He made clear it was his opinion, a "good possibility."
He didn't state that it was a documented fact.

That's not slander. That's clearly an opinion. You can have opinions. You
just can't make claims of fact that are false and damaging.


Where's your evidence?


He doesn't need any. He made clear he was expressing an opinion, inductive
reasoning from certain facts. That's how most people reason most of the
time. It's not a claim that it's certain, it's just his opinion that it's "a
good possibility."

--
Ed Huntress



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Martin H. Eastburn" wrote in message
...
There is something like keeping your opinion to your self.
If it is found an opinion is damaging - just cause was shown.

I don't know what that is supposed to mean, but if it means that someone is
guilty of slander here, it's wrong.

--
Ed Huntress

On 19 Feb 2006 07:52:23 -0800, the renowned jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Tm says...

Funny, if you said that about anyone other than a well known public person
you would find yourself slapped with a slander lawsuit quicker than you can
blink your eyes.

Too bad you don't know **** my friend. a) it would be a libel
suit, and b) cheney is a politician. In the US you can say whatever
you want about politicians. It's basically 'open season' on them,
to make a bad pun....

Jim

Lol Not that bad..


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Tm says...

[[[[Funny, if you said that about anyone other than a well known public
person]]]]
you would find yourself slapped with a slander lawsuit quicker than you
can
blink your eyes.

Too bad you don't know **** my friend. a) it would be a libel
suit, and b) cheney is a politician. In the US you can say whatever
you want about politicians. It's basically 'open season' on them,
to make a bad pun....


Too bad you didn't learn to read very well. Reread the above again. I
excluded politicians.

Verb: slander
1. Charge falsely or with malicious intent; attack the good name and
reputation of someone

It was a bad pun.

In article , Tm says...

Verb: slander
1. Charge falsely or with malicious intent; attack the good name and
reputation of someone

Slander = Spoken

Libel = written.

Remember the S goes with the S: SlanderSpoken

The original comments were WRITTEN therefore if a lawsuit
resulted it would be a LIBEL suit, not slander.

A small technical point I know but I suggest you attend
law school before pontificating.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

jim rozen wrote:
In article , Tm says...

Verb: slander
1. Charge falsely or with malicious intent; attack the good name and
reputation of someone

Slander = Spoken

Libel = written.

Remember the S goes with the S: SlanderSpoken

The original comments were WRITTEN therefore if a lawsuit
resulted it would be a LIBEL suit, not slander.

A small technical point I know but I suggest you attend
law school before pontificating.

Jim,
I'm curious, and I'll bet your wife would know. Does usenet convert private
individuals to public figures the way things like news interviews and such
do?


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

On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 14:15:09 -0500, "Tm" wrote:


"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Tm says...

[[[[Funny, if you said that about anyone other than a well known public
person]]]]
you would find yourself slapped with a slander lawsuit quicker than you
can
blink your eyes.

Too bad you don't know **** my friend. a) it would be a libel
suit, and b) cheney is a politician. In the US you can say whatever
you want about politicians. It's basically 'open season' on them,
to make a bad pun....


Too bad you didn't learn to read very well. Reread the above again. I
excluded politicians.

Verb: slander
1. Charge falsely or with malicious intent; attack the good name and
reputation of someone

It was a bad pun.



Libel is the written or broadcast form of defamation, distinguished from
slander, which is oral defamation

Mark Rand
RTFM

"Ignoramus9292" wrote in message
...
On 19 Feb 2006 12:05:39 -0800, jim rozen wrote:
In article , Tm says...

Verb: slander
1. Charge falsely or with malicious intent; attack the good name and
reputation of someone

Slander = Spoken

Libel = written.

Remember the S goes with the S: SlanderSpoken

The original comments were WRITTEN therefore if a lawsuit
resulted it would be a LIBEL suit, not slander.

A small technical point I know but I suggest you attend
law school before pontificating.

Also, it is important to cite relevant legal definitions rather than
dictionary entries.

Good point. I was afraid we were going to wind up arguing over Webster's
dictionary for a legal understanding of slander. g

--
Ed Huntress

In article , says...


Yeah, that's interesting. I hadn't heard that one but my son is at the age
(18) where I don't hear much from him about what's going on at school. He
had his last personal college interview today and it was like pulling teeth
to find out how it went.

I'm jealous - the boy's a junior and we're just starting the college
selection and application ordeal. It's going to be a long year.

Ned Simmons

In article t,
says...
Ned Simmons wrote:

snipped out a rally great reply...

Of course that assumes you're actually looking for good information and
not simply trying to bolster some preconceived notion. The internet has
sure made the latter much easier than the former.

Ned Simmons

The term I once heard was "webidence".

g I'll have to remember that one.

Ned Simmons

"Ned Simmons" wrote in message
...
In article , says...


Yeah, that's interesting. I hadn't heard that one but my son is at the
age
(18) where I don't hear much from him about what's going on at school.
He
had his last personal college interview today and it was like pulling
teeth
to find out how it went.

I'm jealous - the boy's a junior and we're just starting the college
selection and application ordeal. It's going to be a long year.

Ned Simmons

Oh, yeah, it's a very long year. g This is the nail-biting time: he has
nine applications in and two acceptances, but he won't hear from the rest of
them until the end of March.

Try to have some fun with it and brace yourself for sticker shock.

--
Ed Huntress

On 14 Feb 2006 22:10:37 GMT, Ignoramus21707
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.

Basically, Cheney made a horrible mistake, in that he shot a lawyer
out of season.

Lawyer Season begins on "Law Day", May First. At that time, they are
still plump, and have not yet started breeding.

Ever try to clean one of those things?

On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 07:16:04 -0500, Grunty Grogan wrote:

On 14 Feb 2006 22:10:37 GMT, Ignoramus21707
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.

Basically, Cheney made a horrible mistake, in that he shot a lawyer
out of season.

Lawyer Season begins on "Law Day", May First. At that time, they are
still plump, and have not yet started breeding.

Ever try to clean one of those things?


Id have thought the Lefties would have been overjoyed. After all..the
victim was a Republican lawyer.....

Gunner



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

He is not just a Republican lawyer, but is somewhat of a hero in Austin for
fighting a long and difficult battle against City Hall. The city took his
land for a parking garage for the convention center, and he has been
fighting for restitution for years, and seems to be winning. Sort of a
precursor to the SCOTUS Connecticut eminent domain issue...

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 07:16:04 -0500, Grunty Grogan wrote:

On 14 Feb 2006 22:10:37 GMT, Ignoramus21707
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.

Basically, Cheney made a horrible mistake, in that he shot a lawyer
out of season.

Lawyer Season begins on "Law Day", May First. At that time, they are
still plump, and have not yet started breeding.

Ever try to clean one of those things?


Id have thought the Lefties would have been overjoyed. After all..the
victim was a Republican lawyer.....

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 Mon, 20 Feb 2006 17:12:35 GMT, Gunner
wrote:


Lawyer Season begins on "Law Day", May First. At that time, they are
still plump, and have not yet started breeding.

Ever try to clean one of those things?


Id have thought the Lefties would have been overjoyed. After all..the
victim was a Republican lawyer.....

Well, DAMN! That makes him a RARE PROTECTED ENDANGERED SPECIES.
That's why there is so much fuss.

Gunner wrote:
On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 07:16:04 -0500, Grunty Grogan wrote:

On 14 Feb 2006 22:10:37 GMT, Ignoramus21707
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.

Basically, Cheney made a horrible mistake, in that he shot a lawyer
out of season.

Lawyer Season begins on "Law Day", May First. At that time, they are
still plump, and have not yet started breeding.

Ever try to clean one of those things?


Id have thought the Lefties would have been overjoyed. After all..the
victim was a Republican lawyer.....

Harry Whittington is apparently a pretty decent guy, with enlightened
ideas:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/02/...215profile.php

That said, skeet high-houses are pockmarked w/ shotgun pellet imprints,
even though the idea is to hit the pigeon while it's flying over the
field. Accidents happen, and Mr. Whittington seems to be doing well.
All of us who have ever fired a gun should remember "there but for the
grace of [deity-of-your-choice] go I." Stand BEHIND the
shooter....ALWAYS.

wrote in message
ups.com...

That said, skeet high-houses are pockmarked w/ shotgun pellet imprints,
even though the idea is to hit the pigeon while it's flying over the
field. Accidents happen, and Mr. Whittington seems to be doing well.
All of us who have ever fired a gun should remember "there but for the
grace of [deity-of-your-choice] go I." Stand BEHIND the
shooter....ALWAYS.

From the accounts, it sounds like you would have to be driving an ATV in
circles at 60 mph to stay behind Cheney. He apparently swung behind himself.

I'm just curious, because there are a lot of hunters he Has anyone ever
heard of swinging *behind* the line of hunters being an accepted practice?
Maybe it's different in different parts of the country.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

That said, skeet high-houses are pockmarked w/ shotgun pellet imprints,
even though the idea is to hit the pigeon while it's flying over the
field. Accidents happen, and Mr. Whittington seems to be doing well.
All of us who have ever fired a gun should remember "there but for the
grace of [deity-of-your-choice] go I." Stand BEHIND the
shooter....ALWAYS.

From the accounts, it sounds like you would have to be driving an ATV in
circles at 60 mph to stay behind Cheney. He apparently swung behind himself.

I'm just curious, because there are a lot of hunters he Has anyone ever
heard of swinging *behind* the line of hunters being an accepted practice?
Maybe it's different in different parts of the country.

I can't speak to hunting, but it sure is discouraged on the skeet range
;-)

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

That said, skeet high-houses are pockmarked w/ shotgun pellet
imprints, even though the idea is to hit the pigeon while it's
flying over the field. Accidents happen, and Mr. Whittington seems
to be doing well. All of us who have ever fired a gun should
remember "there but for the grace of [deity-of-your-choice] go I."
Stand BEHIND the shooter....ALWAYS.

From the accounts, it sounds like you would have to be driving an ATV
in circles at 60 mph to stay behind Cheney. He apparently swung
behind himself.

I'm just curious, because there are a lot of hunters he Has anyone
ever heard of swinging *behind* the line of hunters being an accepted
practice? Maybe it's different in different parts of the country.

IIRC, in Michigan it's an invitation to get a butt stroking.
You know, the butt of a weapon up side yo' head sort of thing but it's been
a while since I hunted.
Things might be different these days.


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

In article , Ed Huntress says...

I'm just curious, because there are a lot of hunters he Has anyone ever
heard of swinging *behind* the line of hunters being an accepted practice?
Maybe it's different in different parts of the country.

I don't know about hunting, but at the shooting range I go to, the
range officers carry sidearms. The gloat here is that the range
just re-opened after over a year of renovation and my daughter and I
went today to perforate a few targets. :^)

I always joke with her, that the reason folks there are so well
behaved about keeping their barrels pointed downrange is, that
the range officer will shoot them if they don't - or if they perform
any otherwise unsafe activity.

It was a pleasure to see her bewilderment when the entire story
about what Cheney had done, and how that event actually happened.
I could see the light bulb come on, she was thinking "he did *this*
wrong, then they did *that* wrong, and then they had had a few beers
with lunch...."

They were actually bumping into each other and shooting each other.
It was the classic Charlie Foxtrot. And she realized it instantly.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

jim rozen wrote:
In article , Ed Huntress says...

I'm just curious, because there are a lot of hunters he Has anyone ever
heard of swinging *behind* the line of hunters being an accepted practice?
Maybe it's different in different parts of the country.

I don't know about hunting, but at the shooting range I go to, the
range officers carry sidearms. The gloat here is that the range
just re-opened after over a year of renovation and my daughter and I
went today to perforate a few targets. :^)

I always joke with her, that the reason folks there are so well
behaved about keeping their barrels pointed downrange is, that
the range officer will shoot them if they don't - or if they perform
any otherwise unsafe activity.

It was a pleasure to see her bewilderment when the entire story
about what Cheney had done, and how that event actually happened.
I could see the light bulb come on, she was thinking "he did *this*
wrong, then they did *that* wrong, and then they had had a few beers
with lunch...."

They were actually bumping into each other and shooting each other.
It was the classic Charlie Foxtrot. And she realized it instantly.

Jim

I think that in the grand scheme of things, this is a small event.
Cheney admitted that it was all his fault. Maybe it's time to move on.

"jim rozen" wrote


They were actually bumping into each other and shooting each other.
It was the classic Charlie Foxtrot. And she realized it instantly.

Jim

It is truly amazing that a logical thinking mind, even at that age, can see
the folly of this whole episode.

Children are indoctrinated that adults are in charge, and that children are
stupid, inexperienced and unknowing. And yet, they see what they see and
instinctively know otherwise.

So starts the drama ..............

Steve

jim rozen wrote:
In article , Ed Huntress says...

I'm just curious, because there are a lot of hunters he Has anyone ever
heard of swinging *behind* the line of hunters being an accepted practice?
Maybe it's different in different parts of the country.

I don't know about hunting, but at the shooting range I go to, the
range officers carry sidearms. The gloat here is that the range
just re-opened after over a year of renovation and my daughter and I
went today to perforate a few targets. :^)

I always joke with her, that the reason folks there are so well
behaved about keeping their barrels pointed downrange is, that
the range officer will shoot them if they don't - or if they perform
any otherwise unsafe activity.

It was a pleasure to see her bewilderment when the entire story
about what Cheney had done, and how that event actually happened.
I could see the light bulb come on, she was thinking "he did *this*
wrong, then they did *that* wrong, and then they had had a few beers
with lunch...."

They were actually bumping into each other and shooting each other.
It was the classic Charlie Foxtrot. And she realized it instantly.

Jim

I think that in the grand scheme of things, this is a small event.
Cheney admitted that it was all his fault. Maybe it's time to move on.