On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 20:24:41 +1100, "A.Gent"
wrote:


"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 18:32:39 +1100, "A.Gent"
wrote:

I take your point, but I don't concecde that it was kinder and gentler then than
now.
I have been back recently.




Number of prisoners does not correlate with safety on the streets. Really.
Number of prisoners is a function of community and judicial tolerance of bad
behaviour.
Less tolerance, more prisoners.


More crime = more prisoners. Else you lads tend to incarcerate the
innocent.

Not long ago, there was a scandalous increase in the crime rate (drugs, assault) in
SW Sydney. The State Premier decreed it had to be fixed. So, they changed the
reporting requirements and definitions and *bingo*! Instant decrease in crime rate.

I don't trust these figures.
I trust my personal experience, "anecdotal" as it may be.

So you spend a lot of time in prison General Population?


Might want to look at this one as well....
http://www.saf.org/JFPP14ch5.htm

Shrug.
Lies, damn lies and statistics.
The author of the website mightn't have an agenda, maybe?

Sometimes a cigar is simply a cigar. Notice where the data came from?
US Department of Justice source. Or are they liars too?


I don't know if its the weapons they carry or the infrastructure that supports
them
or their training or their common sense - or all these things combined. I haven't
heard of any shootings by cops at the block recently, and I sure would've heard if
there'd been one.

Lets send them out unarmed for a year and see shall we? EG

OK.
We used to do that.
Probably could now, too.

So..after you ban frozen Roo tails as deadly assault weapons.....
Btw..why did the coppers start carrying guns?


Basically being a little more cautious than you suggest in the following para.
Since there are practically no genuine "no-go" areas in Sydney, this isn't a
problem.
I will not cross the road, however, to confront a noisy troublemaker bent on
violence, unless it seems someone else is in uncalled-for trouble.

This begs the question..what keeps the noisy trouble makers from
crossing to YOUR side of the road to make trouble for you?

Why bother?
I'm not "dissing" them (is that the right word?)

And? One would suppose that the sight of your Rolex or camera bag is
a free pass? Or that they just happen to all be in a jovial mood when
you are in the neighborhood? Must be that sparkling personality of
yours that always tames the wild beasts..


IOW, I won't allow my bravado to get me into trouble.

Whats bravado have to do with anything? I simply dont worry much about
the bad guys.

Neither do I.
Different reasons, perhaps.

Indeed.



(The Jets and the Sharks moved out after their return season finished in the
60's.)

http://www.segag.org/frbldcrp.html

Interesting city, LA.

Notice its not just LA..but in every big city that the gangbangers
hang their doorags.


They have always been able to get a gun. No illegal drugs or guns in Oz?
The ban doesnt seem to be working in the UK either...
http://www.guncontrolnetwork.org/australia5.htm

(link not working for me. Maybe its censored in Australia! LOL!)

It wouldnt be the first time G


Of course they can. Always have. Always will.
There will always be lawbreakers.
I don't see why we should make it cheap and easy for them *and* the fringe nutters
(who would qualify) to go about armed.

Its always been cheap and easy.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/gun/Story/...363761,00.html
One in three young criminals is armed

I seriously doubt its that many.
Or, if it is, they hardly ever flash them.
I've never seen an illegal firearm brandished.
Again, I'm relying on personal experience, noit some "journalist's" take.

Good for you. I hope you remain safe for life.



Chuckle..Id worry far more about those that simply bypass the process
altogether and go armed with anything that can be used as a weapon, even
a chunk of rebar. When granny is confronted by a 180lb laddy with a
chunk of rebar, her options are limited indeed. Particularly when no one
else is able to come to her succor. If more people were legally
armed..the bad guy, even if armed with a gun, becomes the center of
attention for one or more armed citizens. Think he wants to buck the
odds? Check that graph link I provided above for proof.

Not proof. Just one suggestion in one set of circumstances.

I'm familiar with, but reject, that argument.
Sorry

Shrug..I reject most of yours as being unrealistic and utopian..but
hey...they are yours.

Shrug.


I love B&W night photography..and have won a local award or two for my
modest subittals. Though I prefer doing it with large format..ie 4x5.

Me too, in a way. Astrophotography surely qualifies as "night photography", yes?
My scope can't fill 4x5 though.

Hummm no. But Id imagine its interesting.



And that bag screams expensive camera..right? So you do huddle and
hide. G

No, it screams hamburger and drinks.
(Y'ought'a see it)

So you do huddle and slink using camoflage. Why? Not because its
possibley dangerous?




So why do you hide your cameras and skulk around?

I don't skulk. I walk proud in my lovely city.
I just don't carry a sign saying "Mug me! I'm an idiot!"

Proudly with a camoflaged camera bag.


A gun, maybe yes. A fire extinguisher? I nevverseddit!

They are both tools for emergencies. The implication was plain. Logical
conclusion and all that. G

Addressed in earlier post.
Shrug.



Isn't that what you've you've done with your pistols on the rare occasions you've
drawn them? Threaten someone? AFAIK you haven't actually bumped anyone, have you?

When presenting my weapon, I was fully prepared to discharge it. The
intent was clear and immediate. There was no brandishing in a
threatening manner. Big difference.

No No No!
I said that.
I said you were "willing" to shoot.
What you ultimately did, have done, successfully, is threaten.

Semantics. Agree to disagree.



As to how many folks Ive killed over the years..does that include those
that died in the air strikes Ive called in? Or simply those Ive
dispatched by myself? With a firearm or those by other means?

Oh cut it out.

Were you aware I spent 2 tours in Vietnam with a combat MOS, and
several years on the street as a deputy sheriff? Plus did a year or
two as a part time bounty hunter, and 6 months in Rhodesia as a
"security guard" shortly after my return from RVN. (the money was
good, the politics sucked..I quit)

Im sure you really dont want to know the details. Hell..I wish I could
forget most of the details.

Please.
Please indeed.


Ah no..the perps broke off the attack before they were fired on, at
which point they were no longer an immediate threat to my person, so
they remained alive.

(Ref also the repeated suggestions to "rack the slide" in the view of the bad
guys.)

Suggestion? I did so in the front seat of a pickup truck while being
fully illuminated through the rear window by high beams, while preparing
to discharge my weapon. A warning perhaps..a direct threat, no.


Oh come on!

Symantics. Perhaps its regional. Shrug.


Maybe you are willing to shoot, prepared to shoot, but on the evidence more likely
to
threaten. (That's surely good, BTW.)

I rather think that making my intend clear is different then
threatening. While similar..the concepts are somewhat different.

Disagree.
Whilst the original intention may have different ("shoot" vs "threaten") the outcome
was threaten. And threaten successfully.

Im sure the perps felt threatened. Though it was not my intent.

See a pattern developing here?

Here's a disturbing thought.
What if (don'cha love "what ifs") you had always been packing a replica, absolutely
indistinguishable from real, instead of a real loaded gun.
The outcome would've been identical *especially* if you hadn't known!

VBG

Jeff

And if a frog had wings, he wouldnt bump his ass when he hopped.
Perhaps a replica would have done as well in those two situations. Or
perhaps the perps would have been decent enough to grease it up well
before stuffing it up my arse. We will never know. I will say
however..Im only alive today because I never carried a replica
firearm.

Gunner

"Gun Control, the theory that a 110lb grandmother should
fist fight a 250lb 19yr old criminal"

In article , Gunner says...

Ok, Gary, where would YOU go if you were in my shoes? And how do you
suggest I pay for the move? What do I do with the ex and her
declining health, the bi-polar clinically depressive son and my
daughter-in-law and the new grand daughter, 6 dogs, a **** load of
feral and domestic cats, a decent machine shop and a house I may loose
because of $6000.00 back land rent in the next couple months, that is
virtually unsellable except at a huge loss?

So Gary, who wants to hire a 50 yr old toothless redneck from
California with this much baggage?

Take as much time as you need.

I've always considered the 'I know what *your* problem is'
discussions to be in very poor taste. But seeing as you asked,
it sounds to me as though you might consider moving to a
good paying job, in any location. Granted you are doing your
relatives a service by staying where you are, but in the
long run you might do best for them by travelling to wherever
the best-paying job you can find happens to be. Live on the
cheap where you can, and send money to the relatives.

Now given that I really do not fully comprehend your situation
I realize that this advise could be 100% wrong for any number
of reasons, having to do with that specific situation. The
first question would be, could you cut the local obligations
loose long enough to strike out and establish yourself elsewhere.

Jim

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

On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 20:34:01 +1100, "A.Gent"
wrote:


"Gunner" wrote in message
news
IE..you have never had the need to defend yourself from attack, so such
an attack can never occure. Correct?

No, but a sensible person will look at the evidence, weigh up the odds and behave
accordingly.

Works for me.

Jeff

Dont work/travel in high crime areas in the US, do you?
Lets weigh up the odds and behave accordingly. Its amazing what
watching a fireman hoseing the blood off a sidewalk and that chalk
outline will do to your estimates of odds and stakes...


Gunner

"Gun Control, the theory that a 110lb grandmother should
fist fight a 250lb 19yr old criminal"

On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 09:19:40 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .

Not at all. It's the spirit of the society itself. If a need to carry
concealed handguns is considered a normal and acceptable part of social
existence, then the society has an attitude problem. It lacks the spirit
that the ancient Greeks identified so well as the necessary condition for
a
civil society, particularly for a democratic one, to thrive.


I notice that the Greeks seemed to be rather heavily armed, while
keeping a rather tough military about them. They were also slave
holders of the first water.

Then you missed the important parts. Their military was not for supressing
their own citizens. It was for conducting wars against other city-states.

You are right..the slaves were simply property.

The important part was the concepts they developed for the relationships of
people in a civil society.

As to armaments..perhaps you may with to read this book. Its most
interesting and well documented

http://members.aol.com/protell/everyman.html

What's it about?

THAT EVERY MAN BE ARMED
The Evolution of a Constitutional Right
By Stephen P. Halbrook
Published by University of New Mexico Press, 1994
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This book, published by the University of New Mexico Press in 1984 and
reprinted by the Independent Institute in 1994, is the most
comprehensive work ever written on the right to keep and bear arms,
which is guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Its author, attorney Stephen P. Halbrook, traces the philosophical,
historical, and legal roots of the right of the citizen to have arms,
beginning in ancient Greece and carrying the analysis forward to legal
and policy controversies of today.

The power of firearms has stirred passions over the right of the
citizenry to own and bear weapons throughout western civilization.
Authored by the principal legal expert on the Second Amendment, That
Every Man Be Armed is the authorative book on the ideas, history, and
legal precedents of the citizen's right to possess arms as being
essential to democracy as is freedom of speech.



The real spiritual failure is that the society has failed to
inculcate -
through moral education, fear of punishment, or whatever - in a
significant
portion of our population a respect for others.

That's a good issue. Lack of that sense of civic responsibility, the
social
responsibilities we have to each other, is a result of the giving-up that
I
was talking about.

Ed Huntress

When the society is no longer able to provide the safety and justice it
promises..many indeed simply lay down. Others provide for themselves.

We call the first group "sheeple".
We call the second group "freemen"

I'm sure you do. In fact, you label people with any words you can find -- or
cook up -- that belittle them while making yourselves sound grand.

Ed Huntress


Sometimes a cigar is only a cigar.

Gunner

"personal weapons are the ultimate decentralization
of political power."

On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 17:18:40 GMT, Abrasha wrote:


psycho babble snipped

Sadly, it seems that you have chosen a life that is filled with people who, by
your own account, are after you, and with guns, so you can keep these people at
a distance. Your "nom de plume" speaks volumes about you too.

It doesn't have to be this way.

Abrasha
http://www.abrasha.com


Btw..my nom de plume is short for Gunner Asch. You might do a google
on the name....

Gunnner Asch
"Gun Control, the theory that a 110lb grandmother should
fist fight a 250lb 19yr old criminal"

On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 18:45:00 GMT, wrote:


If you can repair machine tools, then there are lots of trades you
could handle. The one I mentioned pays more and is plain and simple a
better job and life than you've described. With as many friends as you
have (what the yuppies call a network) you ought to be able to find a
suitable situation in a heartbeat.

Who is hiring, who will pay my moving expenses and where do I fax the
resume?

Gunner

"Gun Control, the theory that a 110lb grandmother should
fist fight a 250lb 19yr old criminal"

On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 14:23:07 GMT, wmbjk
wrote:

On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 04:41:29 GMT, Gunner
wrote:


Its not the odds...its the stakes.

That's like saying "it's the weight... not the arm", when in fact it's
the weight times the arm that's important. Here it's the odds times
the stakes. I doubt you believe your own theory anyway, otherwise you
wouldn't smoke.

Wayne

No one in either side of my family has ever had a smoking related
illness in recorded history. They all tend to live to ripe old ages
and suddenly stop around the 3 digit mark. Since I dont drink like
most of them did (I dont drink at all) perhaps Ill make the triple
digits

I also ride motorcycles, use power tools, have jumped out of perfectly
good airplanes on more than one occasion and a host of other things
that can kill you by accident or inherent risk.

Shrug.

Gunner

"Gun Control, the theory that a 110lb grandmother should
fist fight a 250lb 19yr old criminal"

"pyotr filipivich" wrote in message
news
A city wide blackout at Sat, 13 Mar 2004 17:11:06 GMT did not prevent
"Ed
Huntress" from posting to
rec.crafts.metalworking
the following:

Sounds like a plan. Cut and run, it is too much trouble to stay here.

So what's your plan, to load up and go looking for trouble, so you can
shoot
somebody?

Nope. Just realizing that I can't avoid all of the miscreants, not if I
want to go downtown. Seems the City Council doesn't want harm the
self-esteem
of said miscreants, so won't do anything which might be considered
provocative,
like enforcing the law.

You ought to move to a new town. You and Gunner seem to have picked the
biggest cesspools of the continent to live in.


But then, I have adopted your policy of avoiding the trouble areas. I
don't go downtown if I can help it, and never after five, not armed. I'm
not
planning to shoot it out, I just know that the city doesn't know how to
deal
with miscreants other than abandoning downtown to them after dark. As
soon as
I can, I'm leaving the state. No sense staying where it is so dangerous.

Sounds like a wise plan to me.


When I was active in my local NRA affiliate, involved with protests in my
state capitol, I knew quite a few such people. They were just itching to
"take back the streets." They made jokes about killing people. They were
the
real core of the modern NRA, the hard-liners who drive the politics.

Ah, here we have it. Those who aren't willing to compromise our
principles
are the "hard liners." and the cause of the problem.

It isn't about principles. They're just angry people, who want an excuse to
pull the trigger.


Your solution seems to be for the honest citizens to curtail their
activities rather than deal with the societal results of fifty years of
trying
to understand those intent on unprovoked violence against their fellow
beings.

No, my solution is to not go cruising for a gunfight.

--
Ed Huntress
(remove "3" from email address for email reply)

On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 23:18:02 -0500, Gary Coffman
wrote:

On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 17:34:24 GMT, Gunner wrote:
Actually last year my gross was about $26k. With the 65k mileage.
Since the big layoffs in 2001, I am now an independent machine tool
repair technician. This means I work on machines in machine shops. If
there are no machine shops (or few of them) then I have no work. No
work =no money. no money= no mortgage payment=out on the street.

So perhaps its best that I stay where there are machine shops, no? Hard
to find enough machine shops in Podunk Falls to make a living fixing
their machines/phone systems/plant maint.

Im also 50 yrs old, with an ailing wife, no savings (well, I have $100
in my pocket for emergencies) and a home that will be paid off in about
12 months, however it happens to be in a town that is dying, and
selling it would result in a net loss.

As Dr Phil would say, "How's that workin' for ya?"

It is obvious that you've made some bad choices, and had some
bad breaks, but continuing to stay where you are, playing a losing
game, isn't really smart. Perhaps it is time to make other choices.

My neighbor worked as a mechanic for Eastern Airlines until they
went bankrupt. He started a business restringing tennis rackets in
his garage. Today he repairs and refurbishes all sorts of sports
equipment, and makes a much better living than he did while
working for Eastern. He no longer cares about the health of the
airline industry.

Another of his co-workers at Eastern, a baggage handler, started
a home painting business, and also is doing much better than
when he worked for Eastern.

A new neighbor is a landscaper. Judging by the several nice cars
and trucks, and the big boat he keeps in his back yard, I suspect
he is doing much better than $26,000 a year gross too.

The local QuikTrip always has a sign in the window saying that
store managers make an average of $52,280 per year, and they're
hiring.

The point of all this is that you don't have to be stuck. There are
better choices out there than the ones you've made. Choices that
will bring you more money, health insurance coverage, and freedom
from worries about scratching out a living in a declining industry
located in undesirable parts of cities.

Gary

I worked for the distributor for a CNC machine tool company for 7 yrs.
In 2001 they had a layoff. I decided to become an independent doing
what I was becoming good at, with the hope that I could find my niche
doing something I enjoy, that when the economy swings around, I could
make some decent money, get out from under, and be able to provide for
an uncertain future. This is what Im doing now. If the economy keeps
improving..I might, might, do ok. One of lifes little uncertainties.
Ive found there is no such thing as a sure thing.
Since Ive been on my own, Ive unplugged toilets, patched roofs, moved
machinery, brokered machinery, anything and everything legal and
ethical possible to make a living. And Im not the only one. I think
there are now more independant machine tool techs floating around
loose than ever before. Shrug. "Its the economy stupid". I dont have
a hell of a lot of other options popping up around me. "Its the
economy, stupid". Networking, networking, networking. When companies
are laying off even their maint staff, and putting them on 10-99, its
not like there are a lot of cush gigs anymore. And I cant speak
Mandarin...

Ive had many other careers over time, and becoming good at them,
building the companies up, then had them sold out from under me to
bigger companies. RIFFed I believe is the term. I hated being a cop. I
have the wrong mindset to be a professional asshole, so I quit early
on. I was a very good peace officer, but a lousy law enforcement
officer.

I was tech services manager for a small
communication/data/telecom/security company for 15 yrs. Insurance,
some bennies, profit sharing, retirement. Rather unexpectedly in
1992, the two feuding owners sold off to a major corp.. I lost
everything I had invested in the company. Pffffttttt! Gone. I, me,
myself had taken a little podunk company from 1 (me) technicians to
25, with 3 offices, 170+ security guards, 2 large answering services,
oilfield remote monitoring, etc etc. Sales, hands on, trouble
shooting, blah blah blah.. Phfftttt. Gone. Shrug. **** happens.

Im now 50, and would love to get out of Kalifornia. Shrug..dont see it
happening anytime soon. When your net worth is what you have in your
front pocket, and your credit (thank you wifey) gets you hysterical
laughter from bankers and lenders...your options are limited.

Lots of baggage. Mounds of baggage I drag around behind me. But..Im
not a quitter. If I had been, Id have swallowed a pistol years ago.
But Im going kicking and screaming, clawing and lashing out until
either I win, or die. Shrug. All anyone can do.

Gunner

"Gun Control, the theory that a 110lb grandmother should
fist fight a 250lb 19yr old criminal"

On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 07:55:45 +0800, Old Nick
wrote:

On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 19:10:55 -0800, Jon Anderson
vaguely proposed a theory
......and in reply I say!:
remove ns from my header address to reply via email

Old Nick wrote:

Many people who have survived physical attacks of
some viciousness would be dead now if the punk had had a gun.

Many vicious punks would be dead now if their victims had been armed.

But the punk is far more likely to use the gun! Th DAH!.

In fact I would probably point the gun, get it taken off me by
the bad-ass martial arts freak, and be shot with it.

Then most assuredly, you have no business carrying one for self defense.
At least you are smart enough to recognize this. Indecisive citizens
getting shot with their own guns make bad press for the rest of us.

But if anyone can carry a gun, then we are advocating handing out more
and more guns, to both people who will shoot their own foot, and to
bad punks who would not have had one if guns were harder to get.

Guns make it easy to hurt and kill. The more guns, the more easy
hurtings and killings.

I seem to have heard the same arguments about horseless carriages and
airplanes, during my historical researches. Ive also heard the same
arguments about guns, when the now 42 Shall issue states liberalized
their laws. And those arguments turned out to be bogus. shrug.

Nick old boy..firearms have been around for a very long time. Even the
British were well armed with (evil) guns at one time. Then the Pols
decided that having the masses rise up in the British version of the
Bolshevik Revolution was a bad thing, and made sure the guns became a
Bad Thing for citizens to own. Need the cites? Id be happy to supply
them. Disgusting reading for the most part.

Nick..the British are again becoming well armed. Unlawfully and
largely by only the criminals. Seems there is some reason many cops in
the UK now wear bullet resistant vests, and there is a few fully
automatic weapons in various patrol cars. When packing a pistol was
relatively common in the UK, the Bobbies only needed their truncheons.

What happened? After all, the UK is now supposed to be a kinder,
gentler place to live.

Gunner

"Gun Control, the theory that a 110lb grandmother should
fist fight a 250lb 19yr old criminal"

On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 05:18:59 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 23:33:16 -0500, Gary Coffman
wrote:

On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 17:35:32 GMT, Gunner wrote:
But I have to work there..and thats the point.

No, you *choose* to work there. And by your own admission, you're
making less than poverty level doing it. Wise up.

Gary

Ok..you answer the same question I asked Ed a moment ago.

Ok, Gary, where would YOU go if you were in my shoes? And how do you
suggest I pay for the move? What do I do with the ex and her
declining health, the bi-polar clinically depressive son and my
daughter-in-law and the new grand daughter, 6 dogs, a **** load of
feral and domestic cats, a decent machine shop and a house I may loose
because of $6000.00 back land rent in the next couple months, that is
virtually unsellable except at a huge loss?

So Gary, who wants to hire a 50 yr old toothless redneck from
California with this much baggage?

Take as much time as you need.

Several years ago my gentleman friend and I were watching some movie
that took place in a ghetto (don't remember which city). Danny Aello
was in the movie. There were a lot of shootings and "bad things"
happening in this neighborhood and it was, of course, having a bad
effect on the decent people.. Now, my gentleman friend hasn't a clue
about poor people. Since I work in a welfare office and have had
hards times myself I have a lot more understanding. Anyway, gentleman
friend couldn't understand why all these good people didn't just move
out of the ghetto. Sigh. Unless one has "been there" one just
doesn't understand. It takes a lot of money to move and if you don't
have it you can't and that isn't the only factor. I couldn't get him
to see it. At least the poor in this movie didn't have lots of
"stuff". As I understand it, you do. That makes it more difficult.
So, the other posters here don't get it, but I do.
Sue

Gunner
"Gun Control, the theory that a 110lb grandmother should
fist fight a 250lb 19yr old criminal"

On 13 Mar 2004 21:40:19 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

Ok, Gary, where would YOU go if you were in my shoes? And how do you
suggest I pay for the move? What do I do with the ex and her
declining health, the bi-polar clinically depressive son and my
daughter-in-law and the new grand daughter, 6 dogs, a **** load of
feral and domestic cats, a decent machine shop and a house I may loose
because of $6000.00 back land rent in the next couple months, that is
virtually unsellable except at a huge loss?

So Gary, who wants to hire a 50 yr old toothless redneck from
California with this much baggage?

Take as much time as you need.

I've always considered the 'I know what *your* problem is'
discussions to be in very poor taste. But seeing as you asked,
it sounds to me as though you might consider moving to a
good paying job, in any location. Granted you are doing your
relatives a service by staying where you are, but in the
long run you might do best for them by travelling to wherever
the best-paying job you can find happens to be. Live on the
cheap where you can, and send money to the relatives.

Im waiting. Who and where?

Now given that I really do not fully comprehend your situation
I realize that this advise could be 100% wrong for any number
of reasons, having to do with that specific situation. The
first question would be, could you cut the local obligations
loose long enough to strike out and establish yourself elsewhere.

Jim

I bet you abandon kittens too.

Gunner


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

"Gun Control, the theory that a 110lb grandmother should
fist fight a 250lb 19yr old criminal"

Gunner wrote:

On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 20:34:01 +1100, "A.Gent"
wrote:


"Gunner" wrote in message
news
IE..you have never had the need to defend yourself from attack, so such
an attack can never occure. Correct?

No, but a sensible person will look at the evidence, weigh up the odds and behave
accordingly.

Works for me.

Jeff

Dont work/travel in high crime areas in the US, do you?

Actually I do. However, they are usually wood panneled, the finest scotch is
served, and guns are not part of the picture. ;-)

Lets weigh up the odds and behave accordingly. Its amazing what
watching a fireman hoseing the blood off a sidewalk and that chalk
outline will do to your estimates of odds and stakes...

Never seen either of those, and it's very unlikely that I ever will, given the
places I choose to travel in.

Abrasha
http://www.abrasha.com

michael wrote:

Abrasha wrote:

Mike Patterson wrote:

On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 17:18:40 GMT, Abrasha wrote:

Gunner wrote:




Sadly, it seems that you have chosen a life that is filled with people who, by
your own account, are after you, and with guns, so you can keep these people at
a distance. Your "nom de plume" speaks volumes about you too.

It doesn't have to be this way.

Abrasha
http://www.abrasha.com

True. But it's difficult to get 3-phase power up on top of a mountain
in a cave.

It was easy to get 3-phase power in dowtown San Francisco. He does not have to
live in a cave.

Abrasha
http://www.abrasha.com

3 phase or no, if it were I, the choice would certainly be a cave in preference to Than
Franthithco.

mj

You should see a dentist, or a speech pathologist.

Abrasha
http://www.abrasha.com

GaryH82012 wrote:

It was funny, hearing one of your harshest critics try
to sound like your friend.

I was trying to sound like Gunner's friend?!? Now that truly is funny.
Pathetic, but funny.

Abrasha
http://www.abrasha.com

On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 07:53:45 GMT, Abrasha wrote:

Gunner wrote:

On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 20:34:01 +1100, "A.Gent"
wrote:


"Gunner" wrote in message
news IE..you have never had the need to defend yourself from attack, so such
an attack can never occure. Correct?

No, but a sensible person will look at the evidence, weigh up the odds and behave
accordingly.

Works for me.

Jeff

Dont work/travel in high crime areas in the US, do you?

Actually I do. However, they are usually wood panneled, the finest scotch is
served, and guns are not part of the picture. ;-)

Lets weigh up the odds and behave accordingly. Its amazing what
watching a fireman hoseing the blood off a sidewalk and that chalk
outline will do to your estimates of odds and stakes...

Never seen either of those, and it's very unlikely that I ever will, given the
places I choose to travel in.

Abrasha
http://www.abrasha.com

Keep up the good work. Lets hope you are never the model for that
chalk outline.

Gunner

"Gun Control, the theory that a 110lb grandmother should
fist fight a 250lb 19yr old criminal"

On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 05:58:22 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 14:23:07 GMT, wmbjk
wrote:

On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 04:41:29 GMT, Gunner
wrote:


Its not the odds...its the stakes.

That's like saying "it's the weight... not the arm", when in fact it's
the weight times the arm that's important. Here it's the odds times
the stakes. I doubt you believe your own theory anyway, otherwise you
wouldn't smoke.

Wayne

No one in either side of my family has ever had a smoking related
illness in recorded history. They all tend to live to ripe old ages
and suddenly stop around the 3 digit mark. Since I dont drink like
most of them did (I dont drink at all) perhaps Ill make the triple
digits

So you're just going to ignore that the two elements have to be taken
*together* to properly evaluate risk? Oh well.... Let's see if I have
this straight - when we're talking about low risk of death by mugging,
then it's the death part that's important, so action must be taken.
But if the discussion turns to low risk of death by smoking, it's the
odd's that are important, therefore no action is necessary? I musta'
missed that episode of the Twilight Zone.

BTW, I heard that family history thing from a guy who did some work
for me. Couple years later he was on oxygen. Maybe his relatives
smoked a different brand or something.

Wayne

On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 07:01:19 GMT, Sue wrote:


Several years ago my gentleman friend and I were watching some movie
that took place in a ghetto (don't remember which city). Danny Aello
was in the movie. There were a lot of shootings and "bad things"
happening in this neighborhood and it was, of course, having a bad
effect on the decent people.. Now, my gentleman friend hasn't a clue
about poor people. Since I work in a welfare office and have had
hards times myself I have a lot more understanding. Anyway, gentleman
friend couldn't understand why all these good people didn't just move
out of the ghetto. Sigh. Unless one has "been there" one just
doesn't understand. It takes a lot of money to move and if you don't
have it you can't and that isn't the only factor. I couldn't get him
to see it. At least the poor in this movie didn't have lots of
"stuff". As I understand it, you do. That makes it more difficult.
So, the other posters here don't get it, but I do.
Sue

I see. The ghetto residents are yakking up a storm on Usenet these
days? :-) Some people are powerless, some are not. I doubt that
Gunner is powerless. He seems inclined to believe he is though, and is
willing to spend time to convince me. A few more posts and I just
might start to agree with both of you about it. ;-)

Wayne

In article , Gunner says...

Live on the
cheap where you can, and send money to the relatives.

Im waiting. Who and where?

Start sending out resumes. I know that sounds trite.
There are jobs out there, just real tough to find them.

could you cut the local obligations
loose long enough to strike out and establish yourself elsewhere.

I bet you abandon kittens too.

No, but I don't take any strays in (under most situations).
I guess I was trying to get at teh question, can you do better
for them in the long run, by doing better for yourself.

Jim

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

On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 14:01:35 GMT, wmbjk
wrote:

On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 05:58:22 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 14:23:07 GMT, wmbjk
wrote:

On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 04:41:29 GMT, Gunner
wrote:


Its not the odds...its the stakes.

That's like saying "it's the weight... not the arm", when in fact it's
the weight times the arm that's important. Here it's the odds times
the stakes. I doubt you believe your own theory anyway, otherwise you
wouldn't smoke.

Wayne

No one in either side of my family has ever had a smoking related
illness in recorded history. They all tend to live to ripe old ages
and suddenly stop around the 3 digit mark. Since I dont drink like
most of them did (I dont drink at all) perhaps Ill make the triple
digits

So you're just going to ignore that the two elements have to be taken
*together* to properly evaluate risk? Oh well.... Let's see if I have
this straight - when we're talking about low risk of death by mugging,
then it's the death part that's important, so action must be taken.
But if the discussion turns to low risk of death by smoking, it's the
odd's that are important, therefore no action is necessary? I musta'
missed that episode of the Twilight Zone.

BTW, I heard that family history thing from a guy who did some work
for me. Couple years later he was on oxygen. Maybe his relatives
smoked a different brand or something.

Wayne

You may be right. Only time will tell. On the other hand..a group of
three miscreants with knives confronting you NOW, is of far more
immediate concern than a maybe in the distant future. Smoking may kill
you over time, the perps may kill you in the next couple minutes.
Sorta changes your outlook on threat assessment.

Shrug.

Gunner

"Gun Control, the theory that a 110lb grandmother should
fist fight a 250lb 19yr old criminal"

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 09:19:40 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .

Not at all. It's the spirit of the society itself. If a need to carry
concealed handguns is considered a normal and acceptable part of
social
existence, then the society has an attitude problem. It lacks the
spirit
that the ancient Greeks identified so well as the necessary condition
for
a
civil society, particularly for a democratic one, to thrive.


I notice that the Greeks seemed to be rather heavily armed, while
keeping a rather tough military about them. They were also slave
holders of the first water.

Then you missed the important parts. Their military was not for
supressing
their own citizens. It was for conducting wars against other city-states.

You are right..the slaves were simply property.

So it was in nearly every society until the 17th century. Again, you missed
the important parts about Greek thought on civil society.

As to armaments..perhaps you may with to read this book. Its most
interesting and well documented

http://members.aol.com/protell/everyman.html

What's it about?

THAT EVERY MAN BE ARMED
The Evolution of a Constitutional Right
By Stephen P. Halbrook
Published by University of New Mexico Press, 1994

Oh, that. I read it in the first edition, back around 1988.


We call the first group "sheeple".
We call the second group "freemen"

I'm sure you do. In fact, you label people with any words you can find --
or
cook up -- that belittle them while making yourselves sound grand.

Ed Huntress


Sometimes a cigar is only a cigar.

That's what I mean. You need a better class of analogies. The one you're
using only sees people as tires and cigars.

Ed Huntress

On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 17:36:03 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 09:19:40 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .

Not at all. It's the spirit of the society itself. If a need to carry
concealed handguns is considered a normal and acceptable part of
social
existence, then the society has an attitude problem. It lacks the
spirit
that the ancient Greeks identified so well as the necessary condition
for
a
civil society, particularly for a democratic one, to thrive.


I notice that the Greeks seemed to be rather heavily armed, while
keeping a rather tough military about them. They were also slave
holders of the first water.

Then you missed the important parts. Their military was not for
supressing
their own citizens. It was for conducting wars against other city-states.

You are right..the slaves were simply property.

So it was in nearly every society until the 17th century. Again, you missed
the important parts about Greek thought on civil society.

As to armaments..perhaps you may with to read this book. Its most
interesting and well documented

http://members.aol.com/protell/everyman.html

What's it about?

THAT EVERY MAN BE ARMED
The Evolution of a Constitutional Right
By Stephen P. Halbrook
Published by University of New Mexico Press, 1994

Oh, that. I read it in the first edition, back around 1988.


We call the first group "sheeple".
We call the second group "freemen"

I'm sure you do. In fact, you label people with any words you can find --
or
cook up -- that belittle them while making yourselves sound grand.

Ed Huntress


Sometimes a cigar is only a cigar.

That's what I mean. You need a better class of analogies. The one you're
using only sees people as tires and cigars.

Ed Huntress

And your exposure to that rarified atmosphere up there in your ivory
tower tends to make you more than a bit arrogant.

Gunner


"Gun Control, the theory that a 110lb grandmother should
fist fight a 250lb 19yr old criminal"

On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 05:18:59 GMT, Gunner wrote:
Ok, Gary, where would YOU go if you were in my shoes? And how do you
suggest I pay for the move? What do I do with the ex and her
declining health, the bi-polar clinically depressive son and my
daughter-in-law and the new grand daughter, 6 dogs, a **** load of
feral and domestic cats, a decent machine shop and a house I may loose
because of $6000.00 back land rent in the next couple months, that is
virtually unsellable except at a huge loss?

Do you expect the value of anything you own to rebound in the next two
months? Unlikely, right? So add up *everything* you have at the price you
can get for it in the next 30 days. Don't worry about what you paid for it,
don't worry about what you *hoped* it might be worth some day. Now add
up everything you owe. Subtract the latter from the former. That's what
you're worth right now.

If the number is greater than the cost of bus tickets for you and your
four dependents, you're ready to liquidate and move on.

So Gary, who wants to hire a 50 yr old toothless redneck from
California with this much baggage?

I've already found you a job at the QuikTrip, paying twice what you're
grossing now, and with a medical and dental insurance program. All
you have to do is show up. After the asset sale, your baggage should
be hand carryable.

Take as much time as you need.

Didn't take long. What you have to understand is that what you're
doing now is *not working*, and decide to start doing something else.
I understand that it is painful to give up "stuff", familiar surroundings,
comfortable old patterns of behavior, etc, but you can't let that ruin
your life.

You're going down the drain in two months anyway by your own
admission. Act now, while you still can, salvage what you can of
your financial life, and move on.

You don't have to take that job at the QuikTrip, there are plenty
of other jobs going begging that pay better than what you're doing
now, JB Hunt is always looking for drivers, but you have to do
*something that works*, and do it soon. Otherwise you will be
out on the street, with nothing in your pocket, and no prospects
of anything coming along to change that.

Gary

"Gunner" wrote in message
...

We call the first group "sheeple".
We call the second group "freemen"

I'm sure you do. In fact, you label people with any words you can
find --
or
cook up -- that belittle them while making yourselves sound grand.

Ed Huntress


Sometimes a cigar is only a cigar.

That's what I mean. You need a better class of analogies. The one you're
using only sees people as tires and cigars.

Ed Huntress

And your exposure to that rarified atmosphere up there in your ivory
tower tends to make you more than a bit arrogant.

Yeah. The guy who calls people who disagree with him "sheeple" and himself a
"freeman," now calls someone else "arrogant."

You need a better mirror, Gunner.

Ed Huntress

I've already found you a job at the QuikTrip, paying twice what you're
grossing now, and with a medical and dental insurance program. All
you have to do is show up. After the asset sale, your baggage should
be hand carryable.

A job at a convince store pays $52,000 a year? You can't be serious.

Lane

On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 20:07:21 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .

We call the first group "sheeple".
We call the second group "freemen"

I'm sure you do. In fact, you label people with any words you can
find --
or
cook up -- that belittle them while making yourselves sound grand.

Ed Huntress


Sometimes a cigar is only a cigar.

That's what I mean. You need a better class of analogies. The one you're
using only sees people as tires and cigars.

Ed Huntress

And your exposure to that rarified atmosphere up there in your ivory
tower tends to make you more than a bit arrogant.

Yeah. The guy who calls people who disagree with him "sheeple" and himself a
"freeman," now calls someone else "arrogant."

You need a better mirror, Gunner.

Ed Huntress

You need a mirror, period Ed. Or else the slave whispering in your ear
"Remember Caesar, thou art mortal" or whatever humbling phrase was
used to be sure that he didn't get too big a head. My hat size is
7 1/4, I suspect at times, you wear a 55 gallon hat. You really need
to get out among the little people more often.

Gunner

"Gun Control, the theory that a 110lb grandmother should
fist fight a 250lb 19yr old criminal"

"Gunner" wrote in message
...


Yeah. The guy who calls people who disagree with him "sheeple" and
himself a
"freeman," now calls someone else "arrogant."

You need a better mirror, Gunner.

Ed Huntress

You need a mirror, period Ed. Or else the slave whispering in your ear
"Remember Caesar, thou art mortal" or whatever humbling phrase was
used to be sure that he didn't get too big a head. My hat size is
7 1/4, I suspect at times, you wear a 55 gallon hat. You really need
to get out among the little people more often.

Are they the sheeple or the freemen? How will I tell one from the other? Do
you have a secret handshake or something, or do the sheeple just drool?

You've disparaged a whole segment of the population as "sheeple," puffed
yourself up with the label "freemen," and then called me arrogant to point
out your arrogance.

I think this discussion has come to a revealing end.

Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
et...
"Gunner" wrote in message
...


Yeah. The guy who calls people who disagree with him "sheeple" and
himself a
"freeman," now calls someone else "arrogant."

You need a better mirror, Gunner.

Ed Huntress

You need a mirror, period Ed. Or else the slave whispering in your ear
"Remember Caesar, thou art mortal" or whatever humbling phrase was
used to be sure that he didn't get too big a head. My hat size is
7 1/4, I suspect at times, you wear a 55 gallon hat. You really need
to get out among the little people more often.

Are they the sheeple or the freemen? How will I tell one from the other?
Do
you have a secret handshake or something, or do the sheeple just drool?

You've disparaged a whole segment of the population as "sheeple," puffed
yourself up with the label "freemen," and then called me arrogant to point
out your arrogance.

I think this discussion has come to a revealing end.

Ed Huntress



As I read this head strong war of words between Ed and Gunner I'm thinking
that there is no common ground here. Both of these intelligent people are a
result of their environments, education, and experiences; and obviously the
two shall never meet or share common ground. However, for both of them to
outright deny the other his opinion is absurd and very narrow minded. If it
were at all possible for the two to meet on each others home turf and "walk
a mile in his shoes" then the other would be more understanding, no?

Lane

"Lane" lane_nospam@copperaccents_dot_com wrote in message
...

As I read this head strong war of words between Ed and Gunner I'm thinking
that there is no common ground here. Both of these intelligent people are
a
result of their environments, education, and experiences; and obviously
the
two shall never meet or share common ground. However, for both of them to
outright deny the other his opinion is absurd and very narrow minded. If
it
were at all possible for the two to meet on each others home turf and
"walk
a mile in his shoes" then the other would be more understanding, no?

That's a generous thought, Lane, but I believe that Gunner and I understand
each other pretty well.

This particular issue is one on which we disagree at a very fundamental
level. I don't believe it's a matter of environments so much as the paths
we've chosen.

I'm a troublesome sort for the pro-gun crowd to deal with, because I am a
gun owner, was once very active in gun-rights lobbying (volunteer, not
paid), and basically share their ideas about personal liberties and the
right to self-defense. I even share faith in the principles about
self-defense and society that Jeffrey Snyder laid out so convincingly in "A
Nation of Cowards."

Where I cause trouble is that I have a different set of ideals and goals. I
don't accept the idea that carrying a gun makes you free. I believe it makes
you less free, even though I agree that it may be necessary in some cases
and that it's your right to do so.

So we agree on principles but not on desired ends. I don't celebrate
carrying guns as evidence of strength of character nor as a prescription for
a better society. It's an expedient at best.

Many of the pro-gun crowd want to go off in a different direction, where
everyone is armed. My preferred handguns are fairly heavy and carrying one
would tend to cramp the rest of my life -- both physically and spiritually.

I'm only chiding Gunner here for regressing into calling people "sheeple" if
they don't agree with him. It's an argument over civility -- which the gun
argument is, too, as I find it relevant.

Ed Huntress

In article , Lane says...

As I read this head strong war of words between Ed and Gunner I'm thinking
that there is no common ground here. Both of these intelligent people are a
result of their environments, education, and experiences; and obviously the
two shall never meet or share common ground. However, for both of them to
outright deny the other his opinion is absurd and very narrow minded. If it
were at all possible for the two to meet on each others home turf and "walk
a mile in his shoes" then the other would be more understanding, no?

Ha ha. Yep, they're both pretty good at crossing usenet-swords.
But if you put them in a situation where they would have to
co-operate to achieve a goal, I doubt you could find a more
capable pair. One of those small ironies of life. :^)

Jim

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

A city wide blackout at Sun, 14 Mar 2004 16:53:23 GMT did not prevent Gunner
from posting to rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

BTW, I heard that family history thing from a guy who did some work
for me. Couple years later he was on oxygen. Maybe his relatives
smoked a different brand or something.

Wayne

You may be right. Only time will tell. On the other hand..a group of
three miscreants with knives confronting you NOW, is of far more
immediate concern than a maybe in the distant future. Smoking may kill
you over time, the perps may kill you in the next couple minutes.

They say smoking will kill you. I dunno, I've smoked all my life and I
ain't dead yet.



--
pyotr filipivich.
as an explaination for the decline in the US's tech edge, James
Niccol wrote "It used to be that the USA was pretty good at
producing stuff teenaged boys could lose a finger or two playing with."

A city wide blackout at Sun, 14 Mar 2004 07:01:19 GMT did not prevent Sue
from posting to rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

So Gary, who wants to hire a 50 yr old toothless redneck from
California with this much baggage?

Take as much time as you need.

Several years ago my gentleman friend and I were watching some movie
that took place in a ghetto (don't remember which city). Danny Aello
was in the movie. There were a lot of shootings and "bad things"
happening in this neighborhood and it was, of course, having a bad
effect on the decent people.. Now, my gentleman friend hasn't a clue
about poor people. Since I work in a welfare office and have had
hards times myself I have a lot more understanding. Anyway, gentleman
friend couldn't understand why all these good people didn't just move
out of the ghetto. Sigh. Unless one has "been there" one just
doesn't understand. It takes a lot of money to move and if you don't
have it you can't and that isn't the only factor. I couldn't get him
to see it. At least the poor in this movie didn't have lots of
"stuff". As I understand it, you do. That makes it more difficult.
So, the other posters here don't get it, but I do.
Sue

Yeah, me too.

I just realized that in less than five months, school will be done. I need
to have a job lined up for then. Considering that the last job was over a
month from application to hiring (and they were looking or workers when I
applied) I can see some "lead time issues" tight there.
And, as I am considering moving out of the area, there are the logistics of
conducting a job hunt out of the area. To put it simply, when they say "can
you start monday?" that means I have between "now" and Monday to a) find a
place to live and b) fetch stuff from "home" and move in. Before the first
paycheck comes in too, I might mind you all.
Oh yeah, and being single, I can put most of it in storage and live out of
the back of the pickup till the job arrives. (Lets hear it for celphones, mail
drops and laptop computers. :-| ) Family obligations would seriously
compromise those options.


tschus
pyotr



--
pyotr filipivich.
as an explaination for the decline in the US's tech edge, James
Niccol wrote "It used to be that the USA was pretty good at
producing stuff teenaged boys could lose a finger or two playing with."

On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 21:55:50 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


You need a mirror, period Ed. Or else the slave whispering in your ear
"Remember Caesar, thou art mortal" or whatever humbling phrase was
used to be sure that he didn't get too big a head. My hat size is
7 1/4, I suspect at times, you wear a 55 gallon hat. You really need
to get out among the little people more often.

Are they the sheeple or the freemen? How will I tell one from the other? Do
you have a secret handshake or something, or do the sheeple just drool?

You've disparaged a whole segment of the population as "sheeple," puffed
yourself up with the label "freemen," and then called me arrogant to point
out your arrogance.

LOL..would you like some cheese with that whine? You rather
conviently snipped out what you were talking about... I cut and pasted
it below...G


When the society is no longer able to provide the safety and justice it
promises..many indeed simply lay down. Others provide for themselves.

We call the first group "sheeple".
We call the second group "freemen"


So Ed my man...are those who lay down and curl up when society can no
longer provide for them..freemen or sheeple? Hummmmm????

I think this discussion has come to a revealing end.

Ed Huntress

Indeed it has.

Chuckle

Gunner

"Gun Control, the theory that a 110lb grandmother should
fist fight a 250lb 19yr old criminal"

"Gunner" wrote in message
...

When the society is no longer able to provide the safety and justice it
promises..many indeed simply lay down. Others provide for themselves.

We call the first group "sheeple".
We call the second group "freemen"


So Ed my man...are those who lay down and curl up when society can no
longer provide for them..freemen or sheeple? Hummmmm????

I've never seen anybody lay down and curl up because society can no longer
provide for them. What do freemen do? Beat their chests and yodel while
standing on the bodies?

Ed Huntress

On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 14:09:42 -0800, "Lane"
lane_nospam@copperaccents_dot_com wrote:


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
. net...
"Gunner" wrote in message
...


Yeah. The guy who calls people who disagree with him "sheeple" and
himself a
"freeman," now calls someone else "arrogant."

You need a better mirror, Gunner.

Ed Huntress

You need a mirror, period Ed. Or else the slave whispering in your ear
"Remember Caesar, thou art mortal" or whatever humbling phrase was
used to be sure that he didn't get too big a head. My hat size is
7 1/4, I suspect at times, you wear a 55 gallon hat. You really need
to get out among the little people more often.

Are they the sheeple or the freemen? How will I tell one from the other?
Do
you have a secret handshake or something, or do the sheeple just drool?

You've disparaged a whole segment of the population as "sheeple," puffed
yourself up with the label "freemen," and then called me arrogant to point
out your arrogance.

I think this discussion has come to a revealing end.

Ed Huntress



As I read this head strong war of words between Ed and Gunner I'm thinking
that there is no common ground here. Both of these intelligent people are a
result of their environments, education, and experiences; and obviously the
two shall never meet or share common ground. However, for both of them to
outright deny the other his opinion is absurd and very narrow minded. If it
were at all possible for the two to meet on each others home turf and "walk
a mile in his shoes" then the other would be more understanding, no?

Lane

Hells bells Lane, I LIKE Ed. Indeed we do come from different times
and environments. Big difference is that Ed doesnt realize that his
environment is only a tiny segment of the real world. And though they
call California wierd..Eds bit of heaven in the NE also tends to be
wierd, insular and not particularly enthusiastic about "diversity"

Ed is one of those that looks down his nose at those of us who live in
"flyover country"...which in his lexicon translates as "Here be
dragons".

But for all of that, he is still a pretty sharp guy. We have never
met, though I suspect we would probably get along well enough in real
life. If I make it to Westec, I might even go listen to him speak.

Gunner

"Gun Control, the theory that a 110lb grandmother should
fist fight a 250lb 19yr old criminal"

On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 22:45:50 GMT, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

A city wide blackout at Sun, 14 Mar 2004 07:01:19 GMT did not prevent Sue
from posting to rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

So Gary, who wants to hire a 50 yr old toothless redneck from
California with this much baggage?

Take as much time as you need.

Several years ago my gentleman friend and I were watching some movie
that took place in a ghetto (don't remember which city). Danny Aello
was in the movie. There were a lot of shootings and "bad things"
happening in this neighborhood and it was, of course, having a bad
effect on the decent people.. Now, my gentleman friend hasn't a clue
about poor people. Since I work in a welfare office and have had
hards times myself I have a lot more understanding. Anyway, gentleman
friend couldn't understand why all these good people didn't just move
out of the ghetto. Sigh. Unless one has "been there" one just
doesn't understand. It takes a lot of money to move and if you don't
have it you can't and that isn't the only factor. I couldn't get him
to see it. At least the poor in this movie didn't have lots of
"stuff". As I understand it, you do. That makes it more difficult.
So, the other posters here don't get it, but I do.
Sue

Yeah, me too.

I just realized that in less than five months, school will be done. I need
to have a job lined up for then. Considering that the last job was over a
month from application to hiring (and they were looking or workers when I
applied) I can see some "lead time issues" tight there.
And, as I am considering moving out of the area, there are the logistics of
conducting a job hunt out of the area. To put it simply, when they say "can
you start monday?" that means I have between "now" and Monday to a) find a
place to live and b) fetch stuff from "home" and move in. Before the first
paycheck comes in too, I might mind you all.
Oh yeah, and being single, I can put most of it in storage and live out of
the back of the pickup till the job arrives. (Lets hear it for celphones, mail
drops and laptop computers. :-| ) Family obligations would seriously
compromise those options.


tschus
pyotr

I must have missed that thread. I've done similar things many times.
Always think of every scenario , then no guts no glory. When you find
a safe place to park let me know. Truck stops are my favorite , but
just about anywhere the cops are sure to bang on my window. Make sure
your exhaust is in good shape , my truck has idled for 100's of hours.
The hand dryers work good for a hair dryer. Meet people to put you up
once in awhile so you don't loose it. You have to be clean and be
rested at almost all costs or nothing will work out right.

Firearms? LOL I sleep better with one.

On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 23:31:04 GMT, Sunworshiper
wrote:


The hand dryers work good for a hair dryer.

I always knew they must be good for something. :-)

Wayne

"Gunner" wrote in message
...


Ed is one of those that looks down his nose at those of us who live in
"flyover country"...which in his lexicon translates as "Here be
dragons".

That's *flypaper country*. Flypaper is the excuse they use for newspapers in
flyover country.


But for all of that, he is still a pretty sharp guy. We have never
met, though I suspect we would probably get along well enough in real
life. If I make it to Westec, I might even go listen to him speak.

Sorry, it's not a public thing. It's a press conference for editors. I doubt
if I'll have more than 20 minutes, anyway.

However, I'll be at the show all day Tuesday, if you're going to be around.

Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
...


Ed is one of those that looks down his nose at those of us who live in
"flyover country"...which in his lexicon translates as "Here be
dragons".

That's *flypaper country*. Flypaper is the excuse they use for newspapers in
flyover country.


But for all of that, he is still a pretty sharp guy. We have never
met, though I suspect we would probably get along well enough in real
life. If I make it to Westec, I might even go listen to him speak.

Sorry, it's not a public thing. It's a press conference for editors. I doubt
if I'll have more than 20 minutes, anyway.

However, I'll be at the show all day Tuesday, if you're going to be around.

Ed Huntress

Dang, a couple hundred miles away and I'll miss WESTEC *and* Ed. I have way too
much work to go anywhere. Maybe next year...again.

michael

In article , Ed Huntress
says...

So we agree on principles but not on desired ends. I don't celebrate
carrying guns as evidence of strength of character nor as a prescription for
a better society. It's an expedient at best.

A thorn in the side indeed. It's easy for them to dismiss
the Rosie O'Donnell folks as whacky, the pro gun folks are
not troubled by those.

Somebody like you though, so close... yet so far. :^)

Jim

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