Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Metalworking (rec.crafts.metalworking) Discuss various aspects of working with metal, such as machining, welding, metal joining, screwing, casting, hardening/tempering, blacksmithing/forging, spinning and hammer work, sheet metal work. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
A serious discussion about the need for more gun control
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 01:48:41 -0500, strabo
wrote: Dom wrote: Point taken Dan, but I was referring to handguns. Surely a handgun would be innefective against a brown bear? There are plenty of farmers in Australia that carry firearms in thier vehicles, but they are shotguns and rifles. How many farmers do you know that would use a handgun to kull wild animals? Hand guns are most effective at killing humans at close range aren't they? Handguns are handier than long guns in some situations that do not involve killing humans. If a water mocassin (very aggressive poisonous snake) drops out of a tree into your boat while fishing a river in the southern US, a rifle would be quite unwieldy so a handgun is a much better choice. The risk of shooting a hole in the boat is strongly preferable to being fanged by a cottonmouth because the bitten will expire long before the boat sinks. There are handguns sufficent for dealing with brown bear at close range. They're prudent to have for folks who might encounter an aggressive bear while fishing or camping where bears be. These would be folks with no intent of killing a bear, because those intent on killing a bear would use a suitable rifle. Black bears are almost never aggressive, but browns, grizzlys and kodiaks can be. We have all three species in various parts of the USA. There are no bears in metro areas, but there is still a lot of the USA that is way far from metro. Long guns are best for hunting game but a handgun is handier for dispatching a lamb or pig for a cookout and/or mercifully dealing with a terminally suffering animal. I have no desire to influence your opinion nor change your mind. Pick yer pony, take yer ride, do what works for you and y'all. |
#2
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
A serious discussion about the need for more gun control
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 01:45:39 -0600, with neither quill nor qualm, Don
Foreman quickly quoth: On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 01:48:41 -0500, strabo wrote: Dom wrote: Point taken Dan, but I was referring to handguns. Surely a handgun would be innefective against a brown bear? There are plenty of farmers in Australia that carry firearms in thier vehicles, but they are shotguns and rifles. How many farmers do you know that would use a handgun to kull wild animals? Hand guns are most effective at killing humans at close range aren't they? Handguns are handier than long guns in some situations that do not involve killing humans. If a water mocassin (very aggressive poisonous snake) drops out of a tree into your boat while fishing a river in the southern US, a rifle would be quite unwieldy so a handgun is a much better choice. The risk of shooting a hole in the boat is strongly preferable to being fanged by a cottonmouth because the bitten will expire long before the boat sinks. I grew up in Arkansas, where the Air Police used shotguns to kill the cottonmouths at the perimeter of the LRAFB lake. I never heard of a cottonmouth rattler or water moccasin in a tree. Have you seen them displaying this behavior, Don? And I sure would't want to shoot a hole in my boat there. Dem cottonmouths live in de water dere. --- Chaos, panic, and disorder--my work here is done. |
#3
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
A serious discussion about the need for more gun control
Larry: I live in the Mojave desert. Here we have reportedly the most toxic
snakes in the USA. The Mojave Green is a rattlesnake with both hemo and neuro toxic poisons. Moreover the Green can be rather agressive. I've had one come directly at me with me backing up and kicking sand at him. We also have a non-toxic snake called the Red Racer which will strike with less provocation than the rattlers. Oh I forgot we also have the smaller sidewinders her also. Because of these I have both .22 and .38 shot shells for my side arms. I would recommend these for shooting snakes in a boat. BTW I did have a Red Racer get into the sub floor and stick his head out into the area occupied by a spiral staircase that had two teen aged girls going down the stairs. The snakes head was at eye level. I didn't have to shoot that one. He died from excessive radiated audio frequency .. "Larry Jaques" wrote in message ... On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 01:45:39 -0600, with neither quill nor qualm, Don Foreman quickly quoth: On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 01:48:41 -0500, strabo wrote: Dom wrote: Point taken Dan, but I was referring to handguns. Surely a handgun would be innefective against a brown bear? There are plenty of farmers in Australia that carry firearms in thier vehicles, but they are shotguns and rifles. How many farmers do you know that would use a handgun to kull wild animals? Hand guns are most effective at killing humans at close range aren't they? Handguns are handier than long guns in some situations that do not involve killing humans. If a water mocassin (very aggressive poisonous snake) drops out of a tree into your boat while fishing a river in the southern US, a rifle would be quite unwieldy so a handgun is a much better choice. The risk of shooting a hole in the boat is strongly preferable to being fanged by a cottonmouth because the bitten will expire long before the boat sinks. I grew up in Arkansas, where the Air Police used shotguns to kill the cottonmouths at the perimeter of the LRAFB lake. I never heard of a cottonmouth rattler or water moccasin in a tree. Have you seen them displaying this behavior, Don? And I sure would't want to shoot a hole in my boat there. Dem cottonmouths live in de water dere. --- Chaos, panic, and disorder--my work here is done. |
#4
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
A serious discussion about the need for more gun control
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 07:24:03 -0800, with neither quill nor qualm,
"Stuart & Kathryn Fields" quickly quoth: Larry: I live in the Mojave desert. Here we have reportedly the most toxic snakes in the USA. The Mojave Green is a rattlesnake with both hemo and neuro toxic poisons. Moreover the Green can be rather agressive. I've had one come directly at me with me backing up and kicking sand at him. We also have a non-toxic snake called the Red Racer which will strike with less provocation than the rattlers. Oh I forgot we also have the smaller sidewinders her also. Because of these I have both .22 and .38 shot shells for my side arms. I would recommend these for shooting snakes in a boat. I had some nice little birdshot rounds for my old .22 eons ago. That would be the way to go in a boat, if one had to shoot a snake. But I guess I'm lucky in that I've never met a viper in a tree. BTW I did have a Red Racer get into the sub floor and stick his head out into the area occupied by a spiral staircase that had two teen aged girls going down the stairs. The snakes head was at eye level. I didn't have to shoot that one. He died from excessive radiated audio frequency . Bwahahahaha! Good 'un, Stu. I hope you later closed that opening into the house, too. - This product cruelly tested on defenseless furry animals - -------------------------------------------------------- |
#5
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
A serious discussion about the need for more gun control
On Jan 17, 1:22 pm, Larry Jaques
wrote: I grew up in Arkansas, where the Air Police used shotguns to kill the cottonmouths at the perimeter of the LRAFB lake. I never heard of a cottonmouth rattler or water moccasin in a tree. Have you seen them displaying this behavior, Don? I grew up south of you. Yes Cottonmouths do swim in lakes and then climb a tree that is in the lake. So they can drop out of a tree into a boat. Probably equally common is for a cottonmouth to get snagged by a bass lure. Have not had it happen to me, but have heard people describe the feeling of catching a snake while bass fishing. A real what do I do now minute. It is so hard to push on a fishing line. And the snake is not exactly happy about being hooked. Dan |
#6
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
A serious discussion about the need for more gun control
wrote in message ... On Jan 17, 1:22 pm, Larry Jaques wrote: I grew up in Arkansas, where the Air Police used shotguns to kill the cottonmouths at the perimeter of the LRAFB lake. I never heard of a cottonmouth rattler or water moccasin in a tree. Have you seen them displaying this behavior, Don? I grew up south of you. Yes Cottonmouths do swim in lakes and then climb a tree that is in the lake. So they can drop out of a tree into a boat. Probably equally common is for a cottonmouth to get snagged by a bass lure. Have not had it happen to me, but have heard people describe the feeling of catching a snake while bass fishing. A real what do I do now minute. It is so hard to push on a fishing line. And the snake is not exactly happy about being hooked. Dan What I want to know is what is a "cottonmouth rattler," and how is it different from a water moccasin (Agkistrodon piscivorus). g -- Ed Huntress |
#7
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
A serious discussion about the need for more gun control
Don't you remember the video of the rabbit attacking a snake - the snake
took to the live oak tree. That was some video. Snakes dropping out of trees are typically in swampy areas. Hard to do that in death valley! Martin Martin H. Eastburn @ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net TSRA, Endowed; NRA LOH & Patron Member, Golden Eagle, Patriot's Medal. NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder IHMSA and NRA Metallic Silhouette maker & member. http://lufkinced.com/ Larry Jaques wrote: On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 01:45:39 -0600, with neither quill nor qualm, Don Foreman quickly quoth: On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 01:48:41 -0500, strabo wrote: Dom wrote: Point taken Dan, but I was referring to handguns. Surely a handgun would be innefective against a brown bear? There are plenty of farmers in Australia that carry firearms in thier vehicles, but they are shotguns and rifles. How many farmers do you know that would use a handgun to kull wild animals? Hand guns are most effective at killing humans at close range aren't they? Handguns are handier than long guns in some situations that do not involve killing humans. If a water mocassin (very aggressive poisonous snake) drops out of a tree into your boat while fishing a river in the southern US, a rifle would be quite unwieldy so a handgun is a much better choice. The risk of shooting a hole in the boat is strongly preferable to being fanged by a cottonmouth because the bitten will expire long before the boat sinks. I grew up in Arkansas, where the Air Police used shotguns to kill the cottonmouths at the perimeter of the LRAFB lake. I never heard of a cottonmouth rattler or water moccasin in a tree. Have you seen them displaying this behavior, Don? And I sure would't want to shoot a hole in my boat there. Dem cottonmouths live in de water dere. --- Chaos, panic, and disorder--my work here is done. |
#8
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
A serious discussion about the need for more gun control
http://www.wf.net/~snake/moccasin.htm
Martin H. Eastburn @ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net TSRA, Endowed; NRA LOH & Patron Member, Golden Eagle, Patriot's Medal. NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder IHMSA and NRA Metallic Silhouette maker & member. http://lufkinced.com/ Ed Huntress wrote: wrote in message ... On Jan 17, 1:22 pm, Larry Jaques wrote: I grew up in Arkansas, where the Air Police used shotguns to kill the cottonmouths at the perimeter of the LRAFB lake. I never heard of a cottonmouth rattler or water moccasin in a tree. Have you seen them displaying this behavior, Don? I grew up south of you. Yes Cottonmouths do swim in lakes and then climb a tree that is in the lake. So they can drop out of a tree into a boat. Probably equally common is for a cottonmouth to get snagged by a bass lure. Have not had it happen to me, but have heard people describe the feeling of catching a snake while bass fishing. A real what do I do now minute. It is so hard to push on a fishing line. And the snake is not exactly happy about being hooked. Dan What I want to know is what is a "cottonmouth rattler," and how is it different from a water moccasin (Agkistrodon piscivorus). g -- Ed Huntress |
#9
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
A serious discussion about the need for more gun control
"Martin H. Eastburn" wrote in message ... http://www.wf.net/~snake/moccasin.htm Martin H. Eastburn @ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net TSRA, Endowed; NRA LOH & Patron Member, Golden Eagle, Patriot's Medal. NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder IHMSA and NRA Metallic Silhouette maker & member. http://lufkinced.com/ Thanks, but yes, I know what the snake is. I was just pulling somebody's chain about the "cottonmouth rattler or water moccasin" line. They're the same snake. But they don't rattle. -- Ed Huntress |
#10
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
A serious discussion about the need for more gun control
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 05:22:04 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote: On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 01:45:39 -0600, with neither quill nor qualm, Don Foreman quickly quoth: On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 01:48:41 -0500, strabo wrote: Dom wrote: Point taken Dan, but I was referring to handguns. Surely a handgun would be innefective against a brown bear? There are plenty of farmers in Australia that carry firearms in thier vehicles, but they are shotguns and rifles. How many farmers do you know that would use a handgun to kull wild animals? Hand guns are most effective at killing humans at close range aren't they? Handguns are handier than long guns in some situations that do not involve killing humans. If a water mocassin (very aggressive poisonous snake) drops out of a tree into your boat while fishing a river in the southern US, a rifle would be quite unwieldy so a handgun is a much better choice. The risk of shooting a hole in the boat is strongly preferable to being fanged by a cottonmouth because the bitten will expire long before the boat sinks. I grew up in Arkansas, where the Air Police used shotguns to kill the cottonmouths at the perimeter of the LRAFB lake. I never heard of a cottonmouth rattler or water moccasin in a tree. Have you seen them displaying this behavior, Don? And I sure would't want to shoot a hole in my boat there. Dem cottonmouths live in de water dere. --- Chaos, panic, and disorder--my work here is done. I grew up in coastal Texas, and yes, I've seen it a lot. I've mainly observed it in the early spring, when the cottonmouths sun on branches hanging over the water. It you startle them, they drop in the water. Just don't have your boat under them when they try. I also damn near rolled a canoe letting one have it with a 12 ga. (on a limb, not in the boat). We raised rice. There were a LOT of cottonmouths. I know exactly how it feels when you step on one, it sort of rolls. The only time I was ever struck, I was standing right on top of one in the water. It hit about an inch or less below the top of my boot. They strike hard, like getting hit with a broom handle. It makes you jump. High. Pete Keillor |
#11
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
A serious discussion about the need for more gun control
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 13:03:24 -0500, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth: wrote in message ... On Jan 17, 1:22 pm, Larry Jaques wrote: I grew up in Arkansas, where the Air Police used shotguns to kill the cottonmouths at the perimeter of the LRAFB lake. I never heard of a cottonmouth rattler or water moccasin in a tree. Have you seen them displaying this behavior, Don? I grew up south of you. Yes Cottonmouths do swim in lakes and then climb a tree that is in the lake. So they can drop out of a tree into a boat. Probably equally common is for a cottonmouth to get snagged by a bass lure. Have not had it happen to me, but have heard people describe the feeling of catching a snake while bass fishing. A real what do I do now minute. It is so hard to push on a fishing line. And the snake is not exactly happy about being hooked. Dan What I want to know is what is a "cottonmouth rattler," and how is it different from a water moccasin (Agkistrodon piscivorus). g OK, OK. They could look so much like rattlers that we called 'em that. For a long time I thought there were two different snakes, and I never saw a live one for long. They were deadly and we knew it, making tracks upon the first sighting, frog gigs in hand. We were smart enough not to try to catch or kill one at 10 age. (us, not them) --- Chaos, panic, and disorder--my work here is done. |
#12
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
A serious discussion about the need for more gun control
On Jan 18, 2:01 am, Larry Jaques
wrote: OK, OK. They could look so much like rattlers that we called 'em that. For a long time I thought there were two different snakes, and I never saw a live one for long. They were deadly and we knew it, making tracks upon the first sighting, frog gigs in hand. We were smart enough not to try to catch or kill one at 10 age. (us, not them) --- Chaos, panic, and disorder--my work here is done. You are probably a lot smarter than I was. I can't remember exactly what age I was when a friend and I took up hunting for snakes. We would have hunted any kind of good sized snake, but cottonmouths were by far the easiest to find. Cottonmouths are suppose to be aggressive, but my experience is mostly different. One time when we were hunting frogs, I saw a snake and yelled snake. Harmon jumped up in the air and had not spotted the snake before he landed. He did spot the snake when it was about three feet from him and bent the bejesus out of the net killing the snake. I always thought the only reason the snake headed toward him was that he was between it and the water. After that we went looking for snakes rather than frogs. We carried a single shot .410. When we found a snake, one of us had to get pretty close ( about three feet ) to convince the snake to coil. Otherwise they did their best to get away. They can't go all that fast, but you had to work at getting close as they went under bushes. When one of us got the snake to coil, the other one hunted up a stick. We then pinned the head down and blew it off with the gun. We were skinning them and trying to tan them so did not want holes in the body. I don't think we were ever sucessful at tanning them. I doubt most parents would approve of our efforts today. We were probably 12 or thirteen at the time. Definately before we were 15 and I think after fourth grade. Dan |
#13
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
A serious discussion about the need for more gun control
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message ... On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 13:03:24 -0500, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed Huntress" quickly quoth: wrote in message ... On Jan 17, 1:22 pm, Larry Jaques wrote: I grew up in Arkansas, where the Air Police used shotguns to kill the cottonmouths at the perimeter of the LRAFB lake. I never heard of a cottonmouth rattler or water moccasin in a tree. Have you seen them displaying this behavior, Don? I grew up south of you. Yes Cottonmouths do swim in lakes and then climb a tree that is in the lake. So they can drop out of a tree into a boat. Probably equally common is for a cottonmouth to get snagged by a bass lure. Have not had it happen to me, but have heard people describe the feeling of catching a snake while bass fishing. A real what do I do now minute. It is so hard to push on a fishing line. And the snake is not exactly happy about being hooked. Dan What I want to know is what is a "cottonmouth rattler," and how is it different from a water moccasin (Agkistrodon piscivorus). g OK, OK. They could look so much like rattlers that we called 'em that. For a long time I thought there were two different snakes, and I never saw a live one for long. They were deadly and we knew it, making tracks upon the first sighting, frog gigs in hand. We were smart enough not to try to catch or kill one at 10 age. (us, not them) Don't feel bad. When I was in sixth grade, living in the sticks in Maryland, I caught a little "corn snake" I found under a rotted log and brought him to science class in a pickle jar. My science teacher saw him, turned white (he was already white; he turned whiter) and removed the snake and the jar quickly from the classroom. 'Turned out it was a copperhead. d8-0 -- Ed Huntress |
#14
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
A serious discussion about the need for more gun control
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 21:53:36 -0500, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth: "Larry Jaques" wrote in message .. . OK, OK. They could look so much like rattlers that we called 'em that. For a long time I thought there were two different snakes, and I never saw a live one for long. They were deadly and we knew it, making tracks upon the first sighting, frog gigs in hand. We were smart enough not to try to catch or kill one at 10 age. (us, not them) Don't feel bad. When I was in sixth grade, living in the sticks in Maryland, I caught a little "corn snake" I found under a rotted log and brought him to "Took" it to class. science class in a pickle jar. My science teacher saw him, turned white (he was already white; he turned whiter) and removed the snake and the jar quickly from the classroom. 'Turned out it was a copperhead. d8-0 Oops. You got lucky, son. --- Chaos, panic, and disorder--my work here is done. |
#15
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
A serious discussion about the need for more gun control
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 05:22:04 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote: On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 01:45:39 -0600, with neither quill nor qualm, Don Foreman quickly quoth: On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 01:48:41 -0500, strabo wrote: Dom wrote: Point taken Dan, but I was referring to handguns. Surely a handgun would be innefective against a brown bear? There are plenty of farmers in Australia that carry firearms in thier vehicles, but they are shotguns and rifles. How many farmers do you know that would use a handgun to kull wild animals? Hand guns are most effective at killing humans at close range aren't they? Handguns are handier than long guns in some situations that do not involve killing humans. If a water mocassin (very aggressive poisonous snake) drops out of a tree into your boat while fishing a river in the southern US, a rifle would be quite unwieldy so a handgun is a much better choice. The risk of shooting a hole in the boat is strongly preferable to being fanged by a cottonmouth because the bitten will expire long before the boat sinks. I grew up in Arkansas, where the Air Police used shotguns to kill the cottonmouths at the perimeter of the LRAFB lake. I never heard of a cottonmouth rattler or water moccasin in a tree. Have you seen them displaying this behavior, Don? I didn't personally witness it, but I was warned about it by local guys on a river in South Carolina. They did carry handguns in their boats. Most were aluminum johnboats; patching a bullethole would be easy to do on those. A shotgun would make a bunch of holes or one very large hole, not as easy to patch. Besides the snakes, the skeeters were murder on that swampy river. I decided to skip the river and go to a nearby lake. |
#16
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
A serious discussion about the need for more gun control
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message ... On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 21:53:36 -0500, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed Huntress" quickly quoth: "Larry Jaques" wrote in message . .. OK, OK. They could look so much like rattlers that we called 'em that. For a long time I thought there were two different snakes, and I never saw a live one for long. They were deadly and we knew it, making tracks upon the first sighting, frog gigs in hand. We were smart enough not to try to catch or kill one at 10 age. (us, not them) Don't feel bad. When I was in sixth grade, living in the sticks in Maryland, I caught a little "corn snake" I found under a rotted log and brought him to "Took" it to class. Jesus Christ, is this a metalworking hobby forum, or the freaking American Heritage Book of English Usage? Did everybody get a new grammar book for Christmas? Besides, there's nothing at all wrong with "brought," past tense of "bring," which works perfectly well in that sentence. It's true that I don't know if it was a "him," but we'll assume the epicene use of "him," which is perfectly legitimate in English, so quit yer gripin'. d8-) science class in a pickle jar. My science teacher saw him, turned white (he was already white; he turned whiter) and removed the snake and the jar quickly from the classroom. 'Turned out it was a copperhead. d8-0 Oops. You got lucky, son. Luckier than one of my buddies in the Boy Scout troop there in Hagerstown, who sat on a snake on our five-mile hike, and nobody got a look at it after it bit him on the butt, but before it disappeared, to see if it was a copperhead. The area happened to be loaded with them. No jokes about who was going to suck the poison out. Our scoutmaster, fortunately, was a medical doctor. It apparently wasn't a copperhead, or else he got a dry bite, which the experts say is quite common with copperheads. -- Ed Huntress |
#17
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
A serious discussion about the need for more gun control
"Don Foreman" wrote in message ... On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 05:22:04 -0800, Larry Jaques wrote: On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 01:45:39 -0600, with neither quill nor qualm, Don Foreman quickly quoth: On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 01:48:41 -0500, strabo wrote: Dom wrote: Point taken Dan, but I was referring to handguns. Surely a handgun would be innefective against a brown bear? There are plenty of farmers in Australia that carry firearms in thier vehicles, but they are shotguns and rifles. How many farmers do you know that would use a handgun to kull wild animals? Hand guns are most effective at killing humans at close range aren't they? Handguns are handier than long guns in some situations that do not involve killing humans. If a water mocassin (very aggressive poisonous snake) drops out of a tree into your boat while fishing a river in the southern US, a rifle would be quite unwieldy so a handgun is a much better choice. The risk of shooting a hole in the boat is strongly preferable to being fanged by a cottonmouth because the bitten will expire long before the boat sinks. I grew up in Arkansas, where the Air Police used shotguns to kill the cottonmouths at the perimeter of the LRAFB lake. I never heard of a cottonmouth rattler or water moccasin in a tree. Have you seen them displaying this behavior, Don? I didn't personally witness it, but I was warned about it by local guys on a river in South Carolina. They did carry handguns in their boats. Most were aluminum johnboats; patching a bullethole would be easy to do on those. A shotgun would make a bunch of holes or one very large hole, not as easy to patch. Besides the snakes, the skeeters were murder on that swampy river. I decided to skip the river and go to a nearby lake. We use 20-ga or smaller and #9 shot in Jersey. Except for the twin-engined Jersey skeeters, of course, which are harder to bring down. -- Ed Huntress |
#18
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
A serious discussion about the need for more gun control
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 23:41:58 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote: "Don Foreman" wrote in message .. . On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 05:22:04 -0800, Larry Jaques wrote: On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 01:45:39 -0600, with neither quill nor qualm, Don Foreman quickly quoth: On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 01:48:41 -0500, strabo wrote: Dom wrote: Point taken Dan, but I was referring to handguns. Surely a handgun would be innefective against a brown bear? There are plenty of farmers in Australia that carry firearms in thier vehicles, but they are shotguns and rifles. How many farmers do you know that would use a handgun to kull wild animals? Hand guns are most effective at killing humans at close range aren't they? Handguns are handier than long guns in some situations that do not involve killing humans. If a water mocassin (very aggressive poisonous snake) drops out of a tree into your boat while fishing a river in the southern US, a rifle would be quite unwieldy so a handgun is a much better choice. The risk of shooting a hole in the boat is strongly preferable to being fanged by a cottonmouth because the bitten will expire long before the boat sinks. I grew up in Arkansas, where the Air Police used shotguns to kill the cottonmouths at the perimeter of the LRAFB lake. I never heard of a cottonmouth rattler or water moccasin in a tree. Have you seen them displaying this behavior, Don? I didn't personally witness it, but I was warned about it by local guys on a river in South Carolina. They did carry handguns in their boats. Most were aluminum johnboats; patching a bullethole would be easy to do on those. A shotgun would make a bunch of holes or one very large hole, not as easy to patch. Besides the snakes, the skeeters were murder on that swampy river. I decided to skip the river and go to a nearby lake. We use 20-ga or smaller and #9 shot in Jersey. Except for the twin-engined Jersey skeeters, of course, which are harder to bring down. I just wasn't acclimated, since that trip was in April. Skeeters in the MN northwoods are a fact of life. There's no controlling them. We merely need to go thru an itchy time each spring until some immunity is regained. Once that's done, they still bite but it's easier to ignore once the fear factor of itch insanity is past. Kinda like building a tan in more southern climes. |
#19
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
A serious discussion about the need for more gun control
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 01:40:06 -0600, with neither quill nor qualm, Don
Foreman quickly quoth: I just wasn't acclimated, since that trip was in April. Skeeters in the MN northwoods are a fact of life. There's no controlling them. We merely need to go thru an itchy time each spring until some immunity is regained. Once that's done, they still bite but it's easier to ignore once the fear factor of itch insanity is past. Kinda like building a tan in more southern climes. Gimme the tan _any_ day! --- Chaos, panic, and disorder--my work here is done. |
#20
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
A serious discussion about the need for more gun control
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 23:38:27 -0500, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth: "Larry Jaques" wrote in message .. . On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 21:53:36 -0500, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed Huntress" quickly quoth: "Larry Jaques" wrote in message ... OK, OK. They could look so much like rattlers that we called 'em that. For a long time I thought there were two different snakes, and I never saw a live one for long. They were deadly and we knew it, making tracks upon the first sighting, frog gigs in hand. We were smart enough not to try to catch or kill one at 10 age. (us, not them) Don't feel bad. When I was in sixth grade, living in the sticks in Maryland, I caught a little "corn snake" I found under a rotted log and brought him to "Took" it to class. Jesus Christ, is this a metalworking hobby forum, or the freaking American Heritage Book of English Usage? Did everybody get a new grammar book for Christmas? Besides, there's nothing at all wrong with "brought," past tense of "bring," which works perfectly well in that sentence. It's true that I don't know if it was a "him," but we'll assume the epicene use of "him," which is perfectly legitimate in English, so quit yer gripin'. d8-) You cannot "bring" something "there". Bring it here, take it there. You're better than that, Ed. If you're not careful, the next thing you know you'll be saying is "there's many", "try and", "gave it to my wife and I", and "tempatchur", fer chrissake. /anguished engrish teacher --- Chaos, panic, and disorder--my work here is done. |
#21
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
A serious discussion about the need for more gun control
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message ... On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 23:38:27 -0500, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed Huntress" quickly quoth: "Larry Jaques" wrote in message . .. On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 21:53:36 -0500, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed Huntress" quickly quoth: "Larry Jaques" wrote in message m... OK, OK. They could look so much like rattlers that we called 'em that. For a long time I thought there were two different snakes, and I never saw a live one for long. They were deadly and we knew it, making tracks upon the first sighting, frog gigs in hand. We were smart enough not to try to catch or kill one at 10 age. (us, not them) Don't feel bad. When I was in sixth grade, living in the sticks in Maryland, I caught a little "corn snake" I found under a rotted log and brought him to "Took" it to class. Jesus Christ, is this a metalworking hobby forum, or the freaking American Heritage Book of English Usage? Did everybody get a new grammar book for Christmas? Besides, there's nothing at all wrong with "brought," past tense of "bring," which works perfectly well in that sentence. It's true that I don't know if it was a "him," but we'll assume the epicene use of "him," which is perfectly legitimate in English, so quit yer gripin'. d8-) You cannot "bring" something "there". Bring it here, take it there. You're better than that, Ed. If you're not careful, the next thing you know you'll be saying is "there's many", "try and", "gave it to my wife and I", and "tempatchur", fer chrissake. /anguished engrish teacher Pfffht. From the American Heritage Dictionary, which is the most *prescriptive* dictionary in America: "When the relevant point of focus is not the place of speaking itself, the difference obviously depends on the context. We can say either The labor leaders brought or took their requests to the mayor's office, depending on whether we want to describe things from the point of view of the labor leaders or the mayor. Perhaps for this reason, the distinction between bring and take has been blurred in some areas; a parent may say of a child, for example, She always takes a pile of books home with her from school. This usage may sound curious to those who are accustomed to observe the distinction more strictly, but it bears no particular stigma of incorrectness or illiteracy." The usage here is completely arbitrary: it depends upon whether the speaker (me) is at home, taking the snake, or at school, bringing the snake. There is no "here" or "there" in my original sentence. Here's a quote from Websters: "Merriam-Webster's quotes the 1984 edition of the Longman Dictionary of the English Language, which says, "Either verb can be used when the point of view is irrelevant." The entry continues with an example of a couple who are about to leave home for a concert; the wife says, "Don't forget to bring the umbrella." Merriam-Webster's says that the wife "is already thinking of being at the concert and possibly needing the umbrella. The notion of direction exists entirely in her head; it does not refer to her immediate external surroundings." This is a typical schoolmarm distinction that doesn't really exist in the language, like splitting infinitives (it's done all the time by the best writers, and always has been) or not ending a sentence with a preposition (it's not English; it's not anything, actually). When we start getting formal, I'll listen. (But I probably won't agree.) However, this is a distinction that, as AHD says, is blurred in real use. -- Ed Huntress |
#22
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
A serious discussion about the need for more gun control
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 09:36:34 -0500, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth: Pfffht. From the American Heritage Dictionary, which is the most *prescriptive* dictionary in America: "When the relevant point of focus is not the place of speaking itself, the difference obviously depends on the context. We can say either The labor leaders brought or took their requests to the mayor's office, depending on whether we want to describe things from the point of view of the labor leaders or the mayor. Perhaps for this reason, the distinction between bring and take has been blurred in some areas; a parent may say of a child, for example, She always takes a pile of books home with her from school. This usage may sound curious to those who are accustomed to observe the distinction more strictly, but it bears no particular stigma of incorrectness or illiteracy." The usage here is completely arbitrary: it depends upon whether the speaker (me) is at home, taking the snake, or at school, bringing the snake. There is no "here" or "there" in my original sentence. In my world, "to school" is the same as "there". And the parent should have said her daughter "brought them home from school" because she was home, or "here". Here's a quote from Websters: "Merriam-Webster's quotes the 1984 edition of the Longman Dictionary of the English Language, which says, "Either verb can be used when the point of view is irrelevant." The entry continues with an example of a couple who are about to leave home for a concert; the wife says, "Don't forget to bring the umbrella." Merriam-Webster's says that the wife "is already thinking of being at the concert and possibly needing the umbrella. The notion of direction exists entirely in her head; it does not refer to her immediate external surroundings." She was right. He brought it to her in the car and they left. This is a typical schoolmarm distinction that doesn't really exist in the language, like splitting infinitives (it's done all the time by the best writers, and always has been) or not ending a sentence with a preposition (it's not English; it's not anything, actually). When we start getting formal, I'll listen. (But I probably won't agree.) However, this is a distinction that, as AHD says, is blurred in real use. Well, schoolmarm Larry thinks it's much less blurred. Pffffht! -- You cannot depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus. -- Mark Twain |
#23
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
A serious discussion about the need for more gun control
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message ... On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 09:36:34 -0500, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed Huntress" quickly quoth: Pfffht. From the American Heritage Dictionary, which is the most *prescriptive* dictionary in America: "When the relevant point of focus is not the place of speaking itself, the difference obviously depends on the context. We can say either The labor leaders brought or took their requests to the mayor's office, depending on whether we want to describe things from the point of view of the labor leaders or the mayor. Perhaps for this reason, the distinction between bring and take has been blurred in some areas; a parent may say of a child, for example, She always takes a pile of books home with her from school. This usage may sound curious to those who are accustomed to observe the distinction more strictly, but it bears no particular stigma of incorrectness or illiteracy." The usage here is completely arbitrary: it depends upon whether the speaker (me) is at home, taking the snake, or at school, bringing the snake. There is no "here" or "there" in my original sentence. In my world, "to school" is the same as "there". And the parent should have said her daughter "brought them home from school" because she was home, or "here". If the parent said "brought them home *from* school," then brought would be easier to justify. "Home" is the physical point from which the statement is asserted. If, on the other hand, I'm dragging a jar with a snake in it to school, and if you know that I'm both at home and at school at different times but my location at the time of the sentence is unspecified, it's just like the example in Websters: the notion of direction exists in my head, and it doesn't matter to the sentence whether I'm thinking from the point of view of leaving home, or from the point of view of having arrived at school. Here's a quote from Websters: "Merriam-Webster's quotes the 1984 edition of the Longman Dictionary of the English Language, which says, "Either verb can be used when the point of view is irrelevant." The entry continues with an example of a couple who are about to leave home for a concert; the wife says, "Don't forget to bring the umbrella." Merriam-Webster's says that the wife "is already thinking of being at the concert and possibly needing the umbrella. The notion of direction exists entirely in her head; it does not refer to her immediate external surroundings." She was right. He brought it to her in the car and they left. But she wasn't yet in the car, so, by your rule, one would *take* it to the car. As the example says, the notion of where she is exists entirely in her head. This is a typical schoolmarm distinction that doesn't really exist in the language, like splitting infinitives (it's done all the time by the best writers, and always has been) or not ending a sentence with a preposition (it's not English; it's not anything, actually). When we start getting formal, I'll listen. (But I probably won't agree.) However, this is a distinction that, as AHD says, is blurred in real use. Well, schoolmarm Larry thinks it's much less blurred. Pffffht! The best usage dictionaries in America today disagree with you in this case. d8-) -- Ed Huntress |
#24
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
A serious discussion about the need for more gun control
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 21:50:45 -0500, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth: "Larry Jaques" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 09:36:34 -0500, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed Huntress" quickly quoth: (me) is at home, taking the snake, or at school, bringing the snake. There is no "here" or "there" in my original sentence. In my world, "to school" is the same as "there". And the parent should have said her daughter "brought them home from school" because she was home, or "here". If the parent said "brought them home *from* school," then brought would be easier to justify. "Home" is the physical point from which the statement is asserted. If, on the other hand, I'm dragging a jar with a snake in it to school, and if you know that I'm both at home and at school at different times but my location at the time of the sentence is unspecified, it's just like the example in Websters: the notion of direction exists in my head, and it doesn't matter to the sentence whether I'm thinking from the point of view of leaving home, or from the point of view of having arrived at school. In any case, you took the snake to school, period. Unless the teacher was telling it, when it would be "He brought a snake to class." The easy fix is to use "take" in all instances except when "to here" is stated or implied. In your cases, it wasn't. Besides, you're telling a tale of old. Our old school days are never considered "here", IMHO. They're "there" and in another "when". http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jlawler/aue/bring.html More to chew on. Here's a quote from Websters: "Merriam-Webster's quotes the 1984 edition of the Longman Dictionary of the English Language, which says, "Either verb can be used when the point of view is irrelevant." The entry continues with an example of a couple who are about to leave home for a concert; the wife says, "Don't forget to bring the umbrella." Merriam-Webster's says that the wife "is already thinking of being at the concert and possibly needing the umbrella. The notion of direction exists entirely in her head; it does not refer to her immediate external surroundings." She was right. He brought it to her in the car and they left. But she wasn't yet in the car, so, by your rule, one would *take* it to the car. As the example says, the notion of where she is exists entirely in her head. The implication (my inference) is "bring it with us." This is a typical schoolmarm distinction that doesn't really exist in the language, like splitting infinitives (it's done all the time by the best writers, and always has been) or not ending a sentence with a preposition (it's not English; it's not anything, actually). When we start getting formal, I'll listen. (But I probably won't agree.) However, this is a distinction that, as AHD says, is blurred in real use. Well, schoolmarm Larry thinks it's much less blurred. Pffffht! The best usage dictionaries in America today disagree with you in this case. d8-) Yabbut current usage isn't the same as correct, at least the way I was brought up. Current usage also allows an errant "e" to creep into smoky, hazy, etc. It jes ain't right, Jefro. We'll have to agree to disagree. -- You cannot depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus. -- Mark Twain |
#25
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
A serious discussion about the need for more gun control
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message "Took" it to class. Jesus Christ, is this a metalworking hobby forum, or the freaking American Heritage Book of English Usage? Did everybody get a new grammar book for Christmas? Besides, there's nothing at all wrong with "brought," past tense of "bring," which works perfectly well in that sentence. It's true that I don't know if it was a "him," but we'll assume the epicene use of "him," which is perfectly legitimate in English, so quit yer gripin'. d8-) Ed Huntress I laughed for 5 min after reading that. :-) ...lew... |
#26
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
A serious discussion about the need for more gun control
Larry and Ed . A better comedy team than Homer and Jethro.
Or even Laurel and Hardy. Way above any current comedians. :-) ...lew... |
#27
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
A serious discussion about the need for more gun control
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message ... On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 21:50:45 -0500, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed Huntress" quickly quoth: "Larry Jaques" wrote in message . .. On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 09:36:34 -0500, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed Huntress" quickly quoth: (me) is at home, taking the snake, or at school, bringing the snake. There is no "here" or "there" in my original sentence. In my world, "to school" is the same as "there". And the parent should have said her daughter "brought them home from school" because she was home, or "here". If the parent said "brought them home *from* school," then brought would be easier to justify. "Home" is the physical point from which the statement is asserted. If, on the other hand, I'm dragging a jar with a snake in it to school, and if you know that I'm both at home and at school at different times but my location at the time of the sentence is unspecified, it's just like the example in Websters: the notion of direction exists in my head, and it doesn't matter to the sentence whether I'm thinking from the point of view of leaving home, or from the point of view of having arrived at school. In any case, you took the snake to school, period. Unless the teacher was telling it, when it would be "He brought a snake to class." The easy fix is to use "take" in all instances except when "to here" is stated or implied. Where did you get this stuff? What's your reference for this? In your cases, it wasn't. Besides, you're telling a tale of old. Our old school days are never considered "here", IMHO. They're "there" and in another "when". http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jlawler/aue/bring.html More to chew on. Yeah. You should read it. g Here's the telling line: "Officially Correct English, like the Tooth Fairy and Civic Virtue, is a product of grade school mythology and rarely leads to satisfying answers or useful decisions." If you read it carefully, you'll see that, under all the obfuscation of "causative transitive forms" and so on, it says the same thing that the Webster's usage guide says. And that says, where the "here" and "there" are unspecified, the word to use is the one that expresses what the writer or speaker has in mind. This whole event occurred in the past, so there is no "here" or "there," unless it's explicit in the sentence. As I wrote it, I was neither here nor there. g So, in this case, it was not explicit. Here's a quote from Websters: "Merriam-Webster's quotes the 1984 edition of the Longman Dictionary of the English Language, which says, "Either verb can be used when the point of view is irrelevant." The entry continues with an example of a couple who are about to leave home for a concert; the wife says, "Don't forget to bring the umbrella." Merriam-Webster's says that the wife "is already thinking of being at the concert and possibly needing the umbrella. The notion of direction exists entirely in her head; it does not refer to her immediate external surroundings." She was right. He brought it to her in the car and they left. But she wasn't yet in the car, so, by your rule, one would *take* it to the car. As the example says, the notion of where she is exists entirely in her head. The implication (my inference) is "bring it with us." Why would that be different from "bring it with you," which, since they haven't left yet, violates your "rule"? This is a typical schoolmarm distinction that doesn't really exist in the language, like splitting infinitives (it's done all the time by the best writers, and always has been) or not ending a sentence with a preposition (it's not English; it's not anything, actually). When we start getting formal, I'll listen. (But I probably won't agree.) However, this is a distinction that, as AHD says, is blurred in real use. Well, schoolmarm Larry thinks it's much less blurred. Pffffht! The best usage dictionaries in America today disagree with you in this case. d8-) Yabbut current usage isn't the same as correct, at least the way I was brought up. If you want to see the state of the art, read David Crystal's books. He's probably the foremost historical linguist of English. What you'll see is that most of the rules that give trouble, like the ones we've discussed, are a load of crap cooked up by schoolmarms who had no idea of what they were talking about. They were trying to turn English grammar into something like French or Latin, and they did it at three different periods of history. Those rules have no historical basis in English and they often have no logic, either. Current usage also allows an errant "e" to creep into smoky, hazy, etc. It jes ain't right, Jefro. That's spelling. Spelling evolves, and there is no such thing as "correct" spelling, which you'll see if you read 17th and 18th century English in the unedited originals. There is only common spelling. The rules are broken consistently; English spelling is full of exceptions, based on nothing more than common usage. We'll have to agree to disagree. We can disagree, but it would be more useful if we knew what you were basing your ideas upon. The contemporary usage manuals, of which I've given two major examples, generally take the point of view that I've taken. -- Ed Huntress |
#28
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
A serious discussion about the need for more gun control
"Lew Hartswick" wrote in message ... Larry and Ed . A better comedy team than Homer and Jethro. Or even Laurel and Hardy. Way above any current comedians. :-) ...lew... But not paid nearly as well. There's no justice. -- Ed Huntress |
#29
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
A serious discussion about the need for more gun control
On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 02:04:35 -0500, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth: "Larry Jaques" wrote in message .. . In any case, you took the snake to school, period. Unless the teacher was telling it, when it would be "He brought a snake to class." The easy fix is to use "take" in all instances except when "to here" is stated or implied. Where did you get this stuff? What's your reference for this? Life 101. LRAFB Elementary, Jacksonville JHS, Vista HS. In your cases, it wasn't. Besides, you're telling a tale of old. Our old school days are never considered "here", IMHO. They're "there" and in another "when". http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jlawler/aue/bring.html More to chew on. Yeah. You should read it. g Here's the telling line: "Officially Correct English, like the Tooth Fairy and Civic Virtue, is a product of grade school mythology and rarely leads to satisfying answers or useful decisions." Damn, I knew you'd catch that. The implication (my inference) is "bring it with us." Why would that be different from "bring it with you," which, since they haven't left yet, violates your "rule"? It doesn't. "Bring" indicates "here". To me, with me. Butcha gotta say it right. "Bring it with you when you come to breakfast with me." is good. "Bring it with you when you when you go to school." isn't. We'll have to agree to disagree. We can disagree, but it would be more useful if we knew what you were basing your ideas upon. The contemporary usage manuals, of which I've given two major examples, generally take the point of view that I've taken. My base is perfectly o^Hsubjective; up with what I grew. So, since you disagree, are you saying "for her and I" yet? -- You cannot depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus. -- Mark Twain |
#30
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
A serious discussion about the need for more gun control
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message ... On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 02:04:35 -0500, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed Huntress" quickly quoth: "Larry Jaques" wrote in message . .. In any case, you took the snake to school, period. Unless the teacher was telling it, when it would be "He brought a snake to class." The easy fix is to use "take" in all instances except when "to here" is stated or implied. Where did you get this stuff? What's your reference for this? Life 101. LRAFB Elementary, Jacksonville JHS, Vista HS. In your cases, it wasn't. Besides, you're telling a tale of old. Our old school days are never considered "here", IMHO. They're "there" and in another "when". http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jlawler/aue/bring.html More to chew on. Yeah. You should read it. g Here's the telling line: "Officially Correct English, like the Tooth Fairy and Civic Virtue, is a product of grade school mythology and rarely leads to satisfying answers or useful decisions." Damn, I knew you'd catch that. The implication (my inference) is "bring it with us." Why would that be different from "bring it with you," which, since they haven't left yet, violates your "rule"? It doesn't. "Bring" indicates "here". To me, with me. Butcha gotta say it right. "Bring it with you when you come to breakfast with me." is good. "Bring it with you when you when you go to school." isn't. We'll have to agree to disagree. We can disagree, but it would be more useful if we knew what you were basing your ideas upon. The contemporary usage manuals, of which I've given two major examples, generally take the point of view that I've taken. My base is perfectly o^Hsubjective; up with what I grew. So, since you disagree, are you saying "for her and I" yet? Objective and nominative mixtures make a part of my brain hurt when I see or hear them. That's how this stuff gets implanted in our heads. Bad grammar juju should cause mild headaches. If it wasn't for that, I couldn't make a living as an editor. I would be too slow. I got into a hell of an argument with a highly educated writer and our other editor (I was Senior Editor on that job but one never pulls rank in that work) a year ago. It was over comma splices. They raised holy hell with me because I sometimes splice independent clauses with commas -- a trend in good writing today, and it was good enough for Shakespeare. They remind me of you. d8-) My conclusion is that your point about misuse of "bring" and "take" is not a bad thing, but examples of real writing show, as Webster's demonstrated, that the supposed rule simply doesn't apply in many cases. That's typical of grammar rules in English, and the reason I disparage schoolmarm grammar. To make it teachable and memorable they make it too rigid. Often, as in this case, they stretch points to avoid violating the rule and kids learn to write stilted English for no legitimate reason. I'll guess that your brain has been trained to spot the uses of bring and take and to run the usage through your rule filter automatically. Again, that's not a bad thing. But your rule is too simplistic and you're reaching to make the rule apply. It doesn't. There is hardly a thing in English for which I think of rules when I'm editing. As I said, it all has to work automatically or you have no chance. Clumsy sentences and bad grammatic constructions have to cause some pain, automatically, when you read them, or you'll never get the job done. You train by a lifetime of reading good writing to keep that part of your brain sharp and aware. As it happens, a lot of good writing violates a lot of the rules. So if you work at editing for a long period, the rules themselves can cause headaches. You recognize quickly when you encounter one that makes no sense. -- Ed Huntress |
#31
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
A serious discussion about the need for more gun control
On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 10:05:46 -0500, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth: Objective and nominative mixtures make a part of my brain hurt when I see or hear them. That's how this stuff gets implanted in our heads. Bad grammar juju should cause mild headaches. If it wasn't for that, I couldn't make a living as an editor. I would be too slow. g I got into a hell of an argument with a highly educated writer and our other editor (I was Senior Editor on that job but one never pulls rank in that work) a year ago. It was over comma splices. They raised holy hell with me because I sometimes splice independent clauses with commas -- a trend in good writing today, and it was good enough for Shakespeare. They remind me of you. d8-) Why do they remind you of me? I splice all over the place, too. My conclusion is that your point about misuse of "bring" and "take" is not a bad thing, but examples of real writing show, as Webster's demonstrated, that the supposed rule simply doesn't apply in many cases. That's typical of grammar rules in English, and the reason I disparage schoolmarm grammar. To make it teachable and memorable they make it too rigid. Often, as in this case, they stretch points to avoid violating the rule and kids learn to write stilted English for no legitimate reason. I'll guess that your brain has been trained to spot the uses of bring and take and to run the usage through your rule filter automatically. Again, that's not a bad thing. But your rule is too simplistic and you're reaching to make the rule apply. It doesn't. That simplistic rule works almost every time. There is hardly a thing in English for which I think of rules when I'm editing. As I said, it all has to work automatically or you have no chance. Clumsy sentences and bad grammatic constructions have to cause some pain, automatically, when you read them, or you'll never get the job done. You train by a lifetime of reading good writing to keep that part of your brain sharp and aware. As it happens, a lot of good writing violates a lot of the rules. So if you work at editing for a long period, the rules themselves can cause headaches. You recognize quickly when you encounter one that makes no sense. Grok that, but I still disagree, of course. Ciao! -- You cannot depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus. -- Mark Twain |
#32
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
A serious discussion about the need for more gun control
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message ... On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 10:05:46 -0500, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed Huntress" quickly quoth: Objective and nominative mixtures make a part of my brain hurt when I see or hear them. That's how this stuff gets implanted in our heads. Bad grammar juju should cause mild headaches. If it wasn't for that, I couldn't make a living as an editor. I would be too slow. g I got into a hell of an argument with a highly educated writer and our other editor (I was Senior Editor on that job but one never pulls rank in that work) a year ago. It was over comma splices. They raised holy hell with me because I sometimes splice independent clauses with commas -- a trend in good writing today, and it was good enough for Shakespeare. They remind me of you. d8-) Why do they remind you of me? I splice all over the place, too. Because they look at rules first, and try to make the writing fit the rules even if it requires a stretch to do so. My conclusion is that your point about misuse of "bring" and "take" is not a bad thing, but examples of real writing show, as Webster's demonstrated, that the supposed rule simply doesn't apply in many cases. That's typical of grammar rules in English, and the reason I disparage schoolmarm grammar. To make it teachable and memorable they make it too rigid. Often, as in this case, they stretch points to avoid violating the rule and kids learn to write stilted English for no legitimate reason. I'll guess that your brain has been trained to spot the uses of bring and take and to run the usage through your rule filter automatically. Again, that's not a bad thing. But your rule is too simplistic and you're reaching to make the rule apply. It doesn't. That simplistic rule works almost every time. But not where the the point of view is indeterminate. And that's often the case. There is hardly a thing in English for which I think of rules when I'm editing. As I said, it all has to work automatically or you have no chance. Clumsy sentences and bad grammatic constructions have to cause some pain, automatically, when you read them, or you'll never get the job done. You train by a lifetime of reading good writing to keep that part of your brain sharp and aware. As it happens, a lot of good writing violates a lot of the rules. So if you work at editing for a long period, the rules themselves can cause headaches. You recognize quickly when you encounter one that makes no sense. Grok that, but I still disagree, of course. Ciao! -- You cannot depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus. -- Mark Twain |
#33
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
A serious discussion about the need for more gun control
Lew: I got a laugh myself. Reading some of the stuff on this message
series reminded me of the expression: "Pole Vaulting Over Mouse Turds". Stu "Lew Hartswick" wrote in message ... Ed Huntress wrote: "Larry Jaques" wrote in message "Took" it to class. Jesus Christ, is this a metalworking hobby forum, or the freaking American Heritage Book of English Usage? Did everybody get a new grammar book for Christmas? Besides, there's nothing at all wrong with "brought," past tense of "bring," which works perfectly well in that sentence. It's true that I don't know if it was a "him," but we'll assume the epicene use of "him," which is perfectly legitimate in English, so quit yer gripin'. d8-) Ed Huntress I laughed for 5 min after reading that. :-) ...lew... |
#34
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
A serious discussion about the need for more gun control
"Stuart & Kathryn Fields" wrote in message .. . Lew: I got a laugh myself. Reading some of the stuff on this message series reminded me of the expression: "Pole Vaulting Over Mouse Turds". Stu "Lew Hartswick" wrote in message ... Ed Huntress wrote: "Larry Jaques" wrote in message "Took" it to class. Jesus Christ, is this a metalworking hobby forum, or the freaking American Heritage Book of English Usage? Did everybody get a new grammar book for Christmas? Besides, there's nothing at all wrong with "brought," past tense of "bring," which works perfectly well in that sentence. It's true that I don't know if it was a "him," but we'll assume the epicene use of "him," which is perfectly legitimate in English, so quit yer gripin'. d8-) Ed Huntress I laughed for 5 min after reading that. :-) ...lew... No, mouse turds is what someone *else* does for a living. This is what I do for a living. And it's not a bad living. -- Ed Huntress |
#35
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
A serious discussion about the need for more gun control
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Stuart & Kathryn Fields" wrote in message .. . Lew: I got a laugh myself. Reading some of the stuff on this message series reminded me of the expression: "Pole Vaulting Over Mouse Turds". Stu "Lew Hartswick" wrote in message ... Ed Huntress wrote: "Larry Jaques" wrote in message "Took" it to class. Jesus Christ, is this a metalworking hobby forum, or the freaking American Heritage Book of English Usage? Did everybody get a new grammar book for Christmas? Besides, there's nothing at all wrong with "brought," past tense of "bring," which works perfectly well in that sentence. It's true that I don't know if it was a "him," but we'll assume the epicene use of "him," which is perfectly legitimate in English, so quit yer gripin'. d8-) Ed Huntress I laughed for 5 min after reading that. :-) ...lew... No, mouse turds is what someone *else* does for a living. This is what I do for a living. And it's not a bad living. -- Ed Huntress But ED you aren't getting paid for this so are claiming it on your income tax as a donation to "charity" ? :-) ...lew... |
#36
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
A serious discussion about the need for more gun control
"Lew Hartswick" wrote in message ... Ed Huntress wrote: "Stuart & Kathryn Fields" wrote in message .. . Lew: I got a laugh myself. Reading some of the stuff on this message series reminded me of the expression: "Pole Vaulting Over Mouse Turds". Stu "Lew Hartswick" wrote in message ... Ed Huntress wrote: "Larry Jaques" wrote in message "Took" it to class. Jesus Christ, is this a metalworking hobby forum, or the freaking American Heritage Book of English Usage? Did everybody get a new grammar book for Christmas? Besides, there's nothing at all wrong with "brought," past tense of "bring," which works perfectly well in that sentence. It's true that I don't know if it was a "him," but we'll assume the epicene use of "him," which is perfectly legitimate in English, so quit yer gripin'. d8-) Ed Huntress I laughed for 5 min after reading that. :-) ...lew... No, mouse turds is what someone *else* does for a living. This is what I do for a living. And it's not a bad living. -- Ed Huntress But ED you aren't getting paid for this so are claiming it on your income tax as a donation to "charity" ? :-) ...lew... Education expense. d8-) -- Ed Huntress |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
A serious discussion about the need for more gun control | Metalworking | |||
A serious discussion about the need for more gun control | Metalworking | |||
A serious discussion about the need for more gun control | Metalworking | |||
A serious discussion about the need for more gun control | Metalworking | |||
A serious discussion about the need for more gun control | Metalworking |