Anti-gun lobby displaying it's ignorance again.

[Fran]

On Jul 8, 6:47 pm, John - Melb <mcnamara_j...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Jul 8, 5:30 pm, Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote:





On Jul 8, 1:10 pm, Thomas <recalcitrant_redn...@hotmail.com> wrote:

snip

Where other posters on aus.electronics are at fault, is that they're
quite happy to have Wilson post his off topic, anti-gun  rants here,
but object strongly when an alternative opinion is posted. That one
sided view of what consitutes reasonable or on topic posts on
aus.electronics leads those who have observed or been involved in the
gun debate for some time to see this as unfair.

snip

Ok there are a couple of problems right here.

1. Your assumption that the subscribers of aus.electronics are "quite
happy to have Wilson post his off topic, anti-gun  rants here".

If they were encouraging him, you might have a point, but as far as I
can tell, they haven't. They are ignoring him on this topic just as
one ignores spam about sex services and cheap deals on herbal
medications or sunglasses or other off-topic stuff that appears  in
groups that we read.

Fran, I hope you don't mind if I respond.

The encouragement comes from attacking the counter point, Trevor now
knows that he can post whatever anti-gun rants he likes on
aus.electronics, and others posting there will neither challenge or
question him, however anybody posting an alternative viewpoint will be
hounded by all those "not interested" ones.

1. What Trevor "now knows" is immaterial. As far as I can tell, there
is no advantage to Trevor, (or anyone) posting material to people who
ignore it.

2. If he "now knows" it, and you don't like this this is surely your
fault. After all, if you had done what the subscribers to
aus.electronics had done -- i.e. ignore his stuff, he wouldn't know
it.

3. It's not clear that Trevor was even aware that his stuff was being
x-posted to aus.electronics as *he didn't add this to the follow ups*

4. As tempting as it can be to see this place as some cyber version of
"mortal kombat" in which you (why you?) are moved to confront your
enemy wherever he appears, you should resist this. I am a person of
strong views, and yet I make no attempt to ensure that everyone who
says things I don't agree with on usenet is answered. That's too big a
task and in any event, it would imply a monstrous and unhealthy ego.
If in your opinion, someone is talking nonsense, you have to assume
that at least some others will notice because you John-Melb are not
uniquely insightful. Others will no doubt have followed the path you
have to what you see as truth and wisdom, even if they don't shout it
from the rooftops, and those who may wish to develop nonsense will be
challeneged when they offer it in places where people are interested
in the topic.

It's not surprising that they object to someone posting an
"alternative opinion" because they weren't interested in the original
opinion and now the person posting off-topic has someone with which to
continue posting off-topic. Your inference that this goes to content
is unjustified.

Really? other than content, what difference in the differing posts?

Sequence and continuity. The people ignoring the post as off-topic
were hoping that they'd see no more of the off-topic stuff. Telling
someone to take it someplace else rarely works, often triggers more
off-tiopic posts and is pointless if you believe the post was not
intentional. Once someone answers the off-topic post, the way is open
to a lot more, so it's not surprising that once that Rubicon has been
crossed, people get irritated in particular with the people seen as
opening the floodgates ( to mix a metaphor).

2. If you really believed that Trevor was being encouraged to post his
"off topic, anti-gun  rants here" and that the responses to you were
driven by political sympathy for the gun control position, you might
well wonder why

Looking at the apparent depth of feeling expressed, I think that
decision was made long before any of this started.

Look. There's no doubt that the whole issue is a highly emotive one.
That old saying "when someone mentions culture I reach for my gun"
applies, but I think you are mistaken in attributing the responses
here to animus towards your position on gun rights. As far as I can
tell, regardless of their views on the issue, people here want
discussion confined to electronics and closely related matters. You
are not only breaching that aspiration but, along with with "Thomas"
threatening to punish the group by spamming them for giving what you
mistakenly see tacit endorsement of Trevor's views. Can't you see that
from their POV this sounds like bullying? Like collective punishment?
Are you really surprised that you are getting negative responses?

a) these people would be interested in the other side of the debate.
If they really are hostile, what's the point of posting? Surely they
will already be aware of the pro-gun claims and have rejected them on
one ground or another.

b) Why wouldn't they appear in gun discussion groups and take it up
there?

Your justification seems to be that people in aus.electronics are
guilty of being insufficiently rude to Trevor and accordingly, you
mean to punish them for "giving aid and comfort" to him by posting
your screeds to aus.electronics. In short, it's not about debate. It's
about getting even with Trevor and anyone who tolerates him because
you don't like him or his ideas.

No Fran, it's about debate, Trevor's opinions,  despite being off
topic are welcome there, any differing opinion, is not.

There's simply no evidence that ignoring Trevor's posts implies
endorsement. Most of what is posted in aus.politics offends me at some
level but I respond to only a fraction of it. I'm certainly not
welcoming the views or rightwing bigots by not answering them.

This reflects rather poorly on you.

Perhaps it does, but considering the vilifiation I've received over
the last decade or so, it is a learned response.

Then with the greatest of respect and genuine regard for your
wellbeing, you must unlearn it. This can lead nowhere good for you. No
amount of payback or "ROFLs" will salve your pain -- so much is clear
from your admission above -- you are, by your own admission, not
acting freely but in knee jerk mode. You are driven by psychic pain --
angst if you prefer.

You need to stop making so much in here about you -- your rights to
respond; to get even; to correct the ledger. It's not about you and
how people think of you or the things you deem important. It's about
issues people want and don't want to discuss and their right not to be
bothered by the intrusion of noise into their chosen part of
cyberspace and certainly their right not to be harassed by someone
who, to them, surely appears to be using aus.electronics to deal with
their own feelings of hurt and marginalisation.

My friendly advice would be to reassess what is important to you in
this place and to put some distance between what you write about and
you, the human being. Usenet is a place for batting about ideas. You
don't have to win all the time and there being few real ways of
determining who won anyway, the question should be moot.

Best

Fran

 

[expat101]

NASHVILLE, Tenn. -- Former NFL star Steve McNair was shot dead in his
sleep last week by a 20-year-old girlfriend distraught about mounting
financial problems and her belief that he was seeing someone else,
police said Wednesday.

Sahel Kazemi "was spinning out of control" when she shot McNair four
times as he dozed on a sofa early Saturday, then turned the gun on
herself, Police Chief Ronal Serpas said.

Interviews with friends revealed that she was making payments on two
cars, her rent was doubling and she suspected the married McNair was
having a second affair with another young woman.

She told a friend on Friday that "My life is a ball of s--- and I
should end it," Serpas said.

• Freeman: We never know

Police earlier had labeled McNair's death a homicide, but waited for
further tests and the revelations about Kazemi's personal problems
before concluding that she pulled the trigger of a 9 mm semiautomatic
pistol in a condominium McNair rented with a friend.

McNair, 36, a quarterback for the Tennessee Titans most of his career,
met Kazemi six months ago at a sports cafe where she was a waitress
and his family often ate. She seemed happy and eager to build a life
with him, but something went wrong.

"We do know that she was clearly sending a message during the last
five to seven days of her life that things were going bad quickly,"
Serpas said, though there was no indication she told anyone she
planned to harm McNair.

Serpas said detectives learned that Kazemi recently found out about
another young woman she thought McNair was romantically involved with
and had even followed that woman home, though she did not confront
her.
• Officer: McNair unhappy at Kazemi's DUI stop

Serpas said police believe McNair was asleep when he was killed
because there were no defensive wounds. After shooting McNair in the
head, Kazemi apparently shot him twice in the chest before shooting
him again in the head.

Before shooting herself, she sat next to his body and "tried to stage
it so she would fall in his lap," Serpas said. She did, but her body
slid to the floor and ended up at McNair's feet. The gun was found
underneath her.

The man McNair shared the condo with discovered the bodies and called
a friend, Robert Gaddy, who arrived and called 911. Serpas said the
man didn't call 911 himself because he was in shock.

Gaddy said Wednesday that what he saw in the condo will haunt him for
the rest of his life, but he was glad police made clear that his
longtime friend did not suffer.

Kazemi's family told reporters that the woman was so confident McNair
was divorcing his wife of 12 years that she was preparing to sell her
furniture and move in with him.

But associate Mike Mu, who has worked with McNair's charitable
association for years, said earlier Wednesday that McNair's wife,
Mechelle McNair, "didn't know who this girl is." No records of divorce
proceedings have surfaced. The McNairs have four children.

Gaddy defended McNair as a great husband.

"When Mechelle is ready to speak, she will let people know that,"
Gaddy said. "We can't justify anything that people are starting to
find out, but the one thing that we can say, that I know for sure, is
that Steve loved his family."

Two days before the shooting, police stopped Kazemi driving a Cadillac
Escalade sport utility vehicle that McNair had given her for her
birthday in May.

According to an arrest affidavit, Kazemi had bloodshot eyes and
alcohol on her breath. She refused a breath test and told an officer
"she was not drunk, she was high." She was charged with DUI. McNair
was with her but not charged. He later made her bail.

Police are awaiting toxicology reports on both bodies.

Serpas said that even though both her name and McNair's were on the
Cadillac's title, she was apparently responsible for making payments.
She was also making payments on another car after she couldn't sell
it.

Kazemi had no history of violence, but "on the last several days of
her life it's obvious that she made some very poor decisions," Serpas
said.

Mechelle McNair has not spoken publicly since the shooting. Bishop
Joseph W. Walker III of Mount Zion Baptist Church, which the McNairs
have attended since moving to Nashville in 1997, said Wednesday that
she is doing as well as can be expected.

"Her faith is what's sustaining her now," he said. "We haven't talked
about the circumstances of his death. She is processing it in a
private way. It's obviously devastating on so many levels."

A memorial service is set for Thursday night in Nashville, with the
funeral Saturday in his native Mississippi.

The four-time Pro Bowl quarterback was being remembered Wednesday at
the stadium where he played much of his career. The Tennessee Titans
opened LP Field for fans to watch video highlights of McNair's 13-year
NFL career and look at photos of the quarterback. There was also a
book for them to write messages that will be given to the family.

McNair was known as "Air McNair" for his passing prowess at Alcorn
State in Mississippi. In 2000, he helped lead the Titans to the Super
Bowl, where they ended up a yard short of a touchdown on the last play
of the game when they trailed by seven points.

He spent the last two seasons with the Baltimore Ravens before
retiring from the NFL last year.
Copyright 2009 by STATS LLC and The Associated Press. Any commercial
use or distribution without the express written consent of STATS LLC
and The Associated Press is strictly prohibited.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/11934312

 

[Gray Ghost]

expat101 <nwn.webmaster@gmail.com> wrote in news:45ac9362-403f-451a-b5ed-
1538919d31cd@a37g2000prf.googlegroups.com:

NASHVILLE, Tenn. -- Former NFL star Steve McNair was shot dead in his
sleep last week by a 20-year-old girlfriend distraught about mounting
financial problems and her belief that he was seeing someone else,
police said Wednesday.

Sahel Kazemi "was spinning out of control" when she shot McNair four
times as he dozed on a sofa early Saturday, then turned the gun on
herself, Police Chief Ronal Serpas said.

Interviews with friends revealed that she was making payments on two
cars, her rent was doubling and she suspected the married McNair was
having a second affair with another young woman.

She told a friend on Friday that "My life is a ball of s--- and I
should end it," Serpas said.

• Freeman: We never know

Police earlier had labeled McNair's death a homicide, but waited for
further tests and the revelations about Kazemi's personal problems
before concluding that she pulled the trigger of a 9 mm semiautomatic
pistol in a condominium McNair rented with a friend.

McNair, 36, a quarterback for the Tennessee Titans most of his career,
met Kazemi six months ago at a sports cafe where she was a waitress
and his family often ate. She seemed happy and eager to build a life
with him, but something went wrong.

"We do know that she was clearly sending a message during the last
five to seven days of her life that things were going bad quickly,"
Serpas said, though there was no indication she told anyone she
planned to harm McNair.

Serpas said detectives learned that Kazemi recently found out about
another young woman she thought McNair was romantically involved with
and had even followed that woman home, though she did not confront
her.
• Officer: McNair unhappy at Kazemi's DUI stop

Serpas said police believe McNair was asleep when he was killed
because there were no defensive wounds. After shooting McNair in the
head, Kazemi apparently shot him twice in the chest before shooting
him again in the head.

Before shooting herself, she sat next to his body and "tried to stage
it so she would fall in his lap," Serpas said. She did, but her body
slid to the floor and ended up at McNair's feet. The gun was found
underneath her.

The man McNair shared the condo with discovered the bodies and called
a friend, Robert Gaddy, who arrived and called 911. Serpas said the
man didn't call 911 himself because he was in shock.

Gaddy said Wednesday that what he saw in the condo will haunt him for
the rest of his life, but he was glad police made clear that his
longtime friend did not suffer.

Kazemi's family told reporters that the woman was so confident McNair
was divorcing his wife of 12 years that she was preparing to sell her
furniture and move in with him.

But associate Mike Mu, who has worked with McNair's charitable
association for years, said earlier Wednesday that McNair's wife,
Mechelle McNair, "didn't know who this girl is." No records of divorce
proceedings have surfaced. The McNairs have four children.

Gaddy defended McNair as a great husband.

"When Mechelle is ready to speak, she will let people know that,"
Gaddy said. "We can't justify anything that people are starting to
find out, but the one thing that we can say, that I know for sure, is
that Steve loved his family."

Two days before the shooting, police stopped Kazemi driving a Cadillac
Escalade sport utility vehicle that McNair had given her for her
birthday in May.

According to an arrest affidavit, Kazemi had bloodshot eyes and
alcohol on her breath. She refused a breath test and told an officer
"she was not drunk, she was high." She was charged with DUI. McNair
was with her but not charged. He later made her bail.

Police are awaiting toxicology reports on both bodies.

Serpas said that even though both her name and McNair's were on the
Cadillac's title, she was apparently responsible for making payments.
She was also making payments on another car after she couldn't sell
it.

Kazemi had no history of violence, but "on the last several days of
her life it's obvious that she made some very poor decisions," Serpas
said.

Mechelle McNair has not spoken publicly since the shooting. Bishop
Joseph W. Walker III of Mount Zion Baptist Church, which the McNairs
have attended since moving to Nashville in 1997, said Wednesday that
she is doing as well as can be expected.

"Her faith is what's sustaining her now," he said. "We haven't talked
about the circumstances of his death. She is processing it in a
private way. It's obviously devastating on so many levels."

A memorial service is set for Thursday night in Nashville, with the
funeral Saturday in his native Mississippi.

The four-time Pro Bowl quarterback was being remembered Wednesday at
the stadium where he played much of his career. The Tennessee Titans
opened LP Field for fans to watch video highlights of McNair's 13-year
NFL career and look at photos of the quarterback. There was also a
book for them to write messages that will be given to the family.

McNair was known as "Air McNair" for his passing prowess at Alcorn
State in Mississippi. In 2000, he helped lead the Titans to the Super
Bowl, where they ended up a yard short of a touchdown on the last play
of the game when they trailed by seven points.

He spent the last two seasons with the Baltimore Ravens before
retiring from the NFL last year.
Copyright 2009 by STATS LLC and The Associated Press. Any commercial
use or distribution without the express written consent of STATS LLC
and The Associated Press is strictly prohibited.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/11934312

I guess if he was home with his wife he'd be alive. Then again as the Libs
like to say, adultery doesn't hurt anyone.

--
Always remember:

Bull Connor was a Democrat!

 

[John - Melb]

On Jul 9, 11:57 am, Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jul 8, 6:47 pm, John - Melb <mcnamara_j...@hotmail.com> wrote:





On Jul 8, 5:30 pm, Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jul 8, 1:10 pm, Thomas <recalcitrant_redn...@hotmail.com> wrote:

snip

Where other posters on aus.electronics are at fault, is that they're
quite happy to have Wilson post his off topic, anti-gun  rants here,
but object strongly when an alternative opinion is posted. That one
sided view of what consitutes reasonable or on topic posts on
aus.electronics leads those who have observed or been involved in the
gun debate for some time to see this as unfair.

snip

Ok there are a couple of problems right here.

1. Your assumption that the subscribers of aus.electronics are "quite
happy to have Wilson post his off topic, anti-gun  rants here".

If they were encouraging him, you might have a point, but as far as I
can tell, they haven't. They are ignoring him on this topic just as
one ignores spam about sex services and cheap deals on herbal
medications or sunglasses or other off-topic stuff that appears  in
groups that we read.

Fran, I hope you don't mind if I respond.

The encouragement comes from attacking the counter point, Trevor now
knows that he can post whatever anti-gun rants he likes on
aus.electronics, and others posting there will neither challenge or
question him, however anybody posting an alternative viewpoint will be
hounded by all those "not interested" ones.

1. What Trevor "now knows" is immaterial. As far as I can tell, there
is no advantage to Trevor, (or anyone) posting material to people who
ignore it.

2. If he "now knows" it, and you don't like this this is surely your
fault. After all, if you had done what the subscribers to
aus.electronics had done -- i.e. ignore his stuff, he wouldn't know
it.

3. It's not clear that Trevor was even aware that his stuff was being
x-posted to aus.electronics as *he didn't add this to the follow ups*

Going to disagree there Fran, Tosspot previously posted his rants on
rec.audio.opinion and aus.hi-fi, but shot through as soon as he was
challenged about it.

4. As tempting as it can be to see this place as some cyber version of
"mortal kombat" in which you (why you?) are moved to confront your
enemy wherever he appears, you should resist this. I am a person of
strong views, and yet I make no attempt to ensure that everyone who
says things I don't agree with on usenet is answered. That's too big a
task and in any event, it would imply a monstrous and unhealthy ego.
If in your opinion, someone is talking nonsense, you have to assume
that at least some others will notice because you John-Melb are not
uniquely insightful. Others will no doubt have followed the path you
have to what you see as truth and wisdom, even if they don't shout it
from the rooftops, and those who may wish to develop nonsense will be
challeneged when they offer it in places where people are interested
in the topic.

It's not surprising that they object to someone posting an
"alternative opinion" because they weren't interested in the original
opinion and now the person posting off-topic has someone with which to
continue posting off-topic. Your inference that this goes to content
is unjustified.

Really? other than content, what difference in the differing posts?

Sequence and continuity. The people ignoring the post as off-topic
were hoping that they'd see no more of the off-topic stuff. Telling
someone to take it someplace else rarely works, often triggers more
off-tiopic posts and is pointless if you believe the post was not
intentional. Once someone answers the off-topic post, the way is open
to a lot more, so it's not surprising that once that Rubicon has been
crossed, people get irritated in particular with the people seen as
opening the floodgates ( to mix a metaphor).

I think the floodgates were well and truely opened with Trevor's
"normal people" and gun dealers selling to criminals remarks.

2. If you really believed that Trevor was being encouraged to post his
"off topic, anti-gun  rants here" and that the responses to you were
driven by political sympathy for the gun control position, you might
well wonder why

Looking at the apparent depth of feeling expressed, I think that
decision was made long before any of this started.

Look. There's no doubt that the whole issue is a highly emotive one.
That old saying "when someone mentions culture I reach for my gun"
applies, but I think you are mistaken in attributing the responses
here to animus towards your position on gun rights. As far as I can
tell, regardless of their views on the issue, people here want
discussion confined to electronics and closely related matters. You
are not only breaching that aspiration but, along with with "Thomas"
threatening to punish the group by spamming them for giving what you
mistakenly see tacit endorsement of Trevor's views. Can't you see that
from their POV this sounds like bullying? Like collective punishment?
Are you really surprised that you are getting negative responses?

Yep, I aware of the concept of collective punishment, kinda like all
the "rednecks, reactionaries and rambos" remarks directed at people
like me because some nutter runs amok with a gun in another state?

a) these people would be interested in the other side of the debate.
If they really are hostile, what's the point of posting? Surely they
will already be aware of the pro-gun claims and have rejected them on
one ground or another.

b) Why wouldn't they appear in gun discussion groups and take it up
there?

Your justification seems to be that people in aus.electronics are
guilty of being insufficiently rude to Trevor and accordingly, you
mean to punish them for "giving aid and comfort" to him by posting
your screeds to aus.electronics. In short, it's not about debate. It's
about getting even with Trevor and anyone who tolerates him because
you don't like him or his ideas.

No Fran, it's about debate, Trevor's opinions,  despite being off
topic are welcome there, any differing opinion, is not.

There's simply no evidence that ignoring Trevor's posts implies
endorsement. Most of what is posted in aus.politics offends me at some
level but I respond to only a fraction of it. I'm certainly not
welcoming the views or rightwing bigots by not answering them.

Of course not, the endorsement comes from "ignoring" anti-gun posts
and then flying off the handle at "pro-gun" posts.

This reflects rather poorly on you.

Perhaps it does, but considering the vilifiation I've received over
the last decade or so, it is a learned response.

Then with the greatest of respect and genuine regard for your
wellbeing, you must unlearn it. This can lead nowhere good for you. No
amount of payback or "ROFLs" will salve your pain -- so much is clear
from your admission above -- you are, by your own admission, not
acting freely but in knee jerk mode. You are driven by psychic pain --
angst if you prefer.

Well I'm pretty familiar with knee-jerk reactions

You need to stop making so much in here about you -- your rights to
respond; to get even; to correct the ledger. It's not about you and
how people think of you or the things you deem important. It's about
issues people want and don't want to discuss and their right not to be
bothered by the intrusion of noise into their chosen part of
cyberspace and certainly their right not to be harassed by someone
who, to them, surely appears to be using aus.electronics to deal with
their own feelings of hurt and marginalisation.

No, I'm using aus.electronics to respond to an anti-gun zealots rants,
because, that's where they're being posted.

My friendly advice would be to reassess what is important to you in
this place and to put some distance between what you write about and
you, the human being. Usenet is a place for batting about ideas. You
don't have to win all the time and there being few real ways of
determining who won anyway, the question should be moot.

I know what is important to me, and the concept that an anti-gun
zealot can post his remarks on aus.electronics without challenge
whilst and alternative view is attacked is something I find fairly
offensive.

Best

Fran- Hide quoted text -

All the best Fran, glad to hear from you again.

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

 

[Fran]

On Jul 9, 1:05 pm, John - Melb <mcnamara_j...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Jul 9, 11:57 am, Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote:





On Jul 8, 6:47 pm, John - Melb <mcnamara_j...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Jul 8, 5:30 pm, Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jul 8, 1:10 pm, Thomas <recalcitrant_redn...@hotmail.com> wrote:

snip

Where other posters on aus.electronics are at fault, is that they're
quite happy to have Wilson post his off topic, anti-gun  rants here,
but object strongly when an alternative opinion is posted. That one
sided view of what consitutes reasonable or on topic posts on
aus.electronics leads those who have observed or been involved in the
gun debate for some time to see this as unfair.

snip

Ok there are a couple of problems right here.

1. Your assumption that the subscribers of aus.electronics are "quite
happy to have Wilson post his off topic, anti-gun  rants here".

If they were encouraging him, you might have a point, but as far as I
can tell, they haven't. They are ignoring him on this topic just as
one ignores spam about sex services and cheap deals on herbal
medications or sunglasses or other off-topic stuff that appears  in
groups that we read.

Fran, I hope you don't mind if I respond.

The encouragement comes from attacking the counter point, Trevor now
knows that he can post whatever anti-gun rants he likes on
aus.electronics, and others posting there will neither challenge or
question him, however anybody posting an alternative viewpoint will be
hounded by all those "not interested" ones.

1. What Trevor "now knows" is immaterial. As far as I can tell, there
is no advantage to Trevor, (or anyone) posting material to people who
ignore it.

2. If he "now knows" it, and you don't like this this is surely your
fault. After all, if you had done what the subscribers to
aus.electronics had done -- i.e. ignore his stuff, he wouldn't know
it.

3. It's not clear that Trevor was even aware that his stuff was being
x-posted to aus.electronics as *he didn't add this to the follow ups*

Going to disagree there Fran, Tosspot previously posted his rants on
rec.audio.opinion and aus.hi-fi, but shot through as soon as he was
challenged about it.

No John, what Trevor does in other NGs has no bearing on how you
should respond to him here.

It seems that rec.audio.opinion is a place where it's open slather for
trolls, so what you or Trevor do there seems not to matter.

As to aus.hi-fi it seems that putting aside people spoofing him, he
hasn't actually started a thread there on guns recently.

I did come across you claiming that you had to go after Trevor because
he was "seeking to destroy my way of life".

4. As tempting as it can be to see this place as some cyber version of
"mortal kombat" in which you (why you?) are moved to confront your
enemy wherever he appears, you should resist this. I am a person of
strong views, and yet I make no attempt to ensure that everyone who
says things I don't agree with on usenet is answered. That's too big a
task and in any event, it would imply a monstrous and unhealthy ego.
If in your opinion, someone is talking nonsense, you have to assume
that at least some others will notice because you John-Melb are not
uniquely insightful. Others will no doubt have followed the path you
have to what you see as truth and wisdom, even if they don't shout it
from the rooftops, and those who may wish to develop nonsense will be
challeneged when they offer it in places where people are interested
in the topic.

It's not surprising that they object to someone posting an
"alternative opinion" because they weren't interested in the original
opinion and now the person posting off-topic has someone with which to
continue posting off-topic. Your inference that this goes to content
is unjustified.

Really? other than content, what difference in the differing posts?

Sequence and continuity. The people ignoring the post as off-topic
were hoping that they'd see no more of the off-topic stuff. Telling
someone to take it someplace else rarely works, often triggers more
off-tiopic posts and is pointless if you believe the post was not
intentional. Once someone answers the off-topic post, the way is open
to a lot more, so it's not surprising that once that Rubicon has been
crossed, people get irritated in particular with the people seen as
opening the floodgates ( to mix a metaphor).

I think the floodgates were well and truely opened with Trevor's
"normal people" and gun dealers selling to criminals remarks.







2. If you really believed that Trevor was being encouraged to post his
"off topic, anti-gun  rants here" and that the responses to you were
driven by political sympathy for the gun control position, you might
well wonder why

Looking at the apparent depth of feeling expressed, I think that
decision was made long before any of this started.

Look. There's no doubt that the whole issue is a highly emotive one.
That old saying "when someone mentions culture I reach for my gun"
applies, but I think you are mistaken in attributing the responses
here to animus towards your position on gun rights. As far as I can
tell, regardless of their views on the issue, people here want
discussion confined to electronics and closely related matters. You
are not only breaching that aspiration but, along with with "Thomas"
threatening to punish the group by spamming them for giving what you
mistakenly see tacit endorsement of Trevor's views. Can't you see that
from their POV this sounds like bullying? Like collective punishment?
Are you really surprised that you are getting negative responses?

Yep, I aware of the concept of collective punishment, kinda like all
the "rednecks, reactionaries and rambos" remarks directed at people
like me because some nutter runs amok with a gun in another state?

No. That's a sweeping generalisation. Collective punishment is when
you punish a cohort because of some action you don't like of a
minority -- like Israel and the Gaza Strip (or vice versa, suicide
bombings directed at Israelis as revenge for attacks on Gaza). The
concept of air war is collective punishment when the bombing is of
general areas rather than specific military targets.

You've dodged here John-Melb because the question is about what others
are entitled to make of your threats to attack the group for their
failure to do your bidding in relation to Trevor's material on guns
appearing in aus.electronics.

a) these people would be interested in the other side of the debate..
If they really are hostile, what's the point of posting? Surely they
will already be aware of the pro-gun claims and have rejected them on
one ground or another.

b) Why wouldn't they appear in gun discussion groups and take it up
there?

Your justification seems to be that people in aus.electronics are
guilty of being insufficiently rude to Trevor and accordingly, you
mean to punish them for "giving aid and comfort" to him by posting
your screeds to aus.electronics. In short, it's not about debate. It's
about getting even with Trevor and anyone who tolerates him because
you don't like him or his ideas.

No Fran, it's about debate, Trevor's opinions,  despite being off
topic are welcome there, any differing opinion, is not.

There's simply no evidence that ignoring Trevor's posts implies
endorsement. Most of what is posted in aus.politics offends me at some
level but I respond to only a fraction of it. I'm certainly not
welcoming the views or rightwing bigots by not answering them.

Of course not, the endorsement comes from "ignoring" anti-gun posts
and then flying off the handle at "pro-gun" posts.

One can't infer that because they failed to respond to Trevor but
responded to you that it was the direction of your content that
troubled them. Trevor regularly posts in aus.electronics on topics
that fit the group's purpose. You do not. You are an outsider in
aus.electronics and Trevor is not, so ceteris paribus does not apply.
All else but the content is not equal.

This reflects rather poorly on you.

Perhaps it does, but considering the vilifiation I've received over
the last decade or so, it is a learned response.

Then with the greatest of respect and genuine regard for your
wellbeing, you must unlearn it. This can lead nowhere good for you. No
amount of payback or "ROFLs" will salve your pain -- so much is clear
from your admission above -- you are, by your own admission, not
acting freely but in knee jerk mode. You are driven by psychic pain --
angst if you prefer.

Well I'm pretty familiar with knee-jerk reactions

Apparently

You need to stop making so much in here about you -- your rights to
respond; to get even; to correct the ledger. It's not about you and
how people think of you or the things you deem important. It's about
issues people want and don't want to discuss and their right not to be
bothered by the intrusion of noise into their chosen part of
cyberspace and certainly their right not to be harassed by someone
who, to them, surely appears to be using aus.electronics to deal with
their own feelings of hurt and marginalisation.

No, I'm using aus.electronics to respond to an anti-gun zealots rants,
because, that's where they're being posted.

That is where some have *arrived* as an incident to others x-posting.
There's no need for you to contest the issue in aus.electronics, and
had you responded to Trevor in one of the groups it was on-topic for
and trimmed aus.electronics, it would not have continued to appear
there.

My friendly advice would be to reassess what is important to you in
this place and to put some distance between what you write about and
you, the human being. Usenet is a place for batting about ideas. You
don't have to win all the time and there being few real ways of
determining who won anyway, the question should be moot.

I know what is important to me, and the concept that an anti-gun
zealot can post his remarks on aus.electronics without challenge
whilst and alternative view is attacked is something I find fairly
offensive.

The question is -- why?

I hear of rants against action on climate change being posted all over
the internet. But you know what? I'm not offended. I disagree, and
sometimes (very occasionally) I respond but I'm not offended. That's
the way the world is. People get to rant and vent but in the end,
whether more rant against my views or in my favour is moot. I don't
see it as my job to confront every rant in the universe I don't like.
At worst I note "oh ... another person who is ranting about [...]"

Why wouldn't you focus on defending your way of life in fora where
people accept your terms, or at least think them germane?

Fran

 

[Thomas]

On Jul 9, 3:06 pm, Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jul 9, 1:05 pm, John - Melb <mcnamara_j...@hotmail.com> wrote:





On Jul 9, 11:57 am, Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jul 8, 6:47 pm, John - Melb <mcnamara_j...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Jul 8, 5:30 pm, Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jul 8, 1:10 pm, Thomas <recalcitrant_redn...@hotmail.com> wrote:

snip

Where other posters on aus.electronics are at fault, is that they're
quite happy to have Wilson post his off topic, anti-gun  rants here,
but object strongly when an alternative opinion is posted. That one
sided view of what consitutes reasonable or on topic posts on
aus.electronics leads those who have observed or been involved in the
gun debate for some time to see this as unfair.

snip

Ok there are a couple of problems right here.

1. Your assumption that the subscribers of aus.electronics are "quite
happy to have Wilson post his off topic, anti-gun  rants here".

If they were encouraging him, you might have a point, but as far as I
can tell, they haven't. They are ignoring him on this topic just as
one ignores spam about sex services and cheap deals on herbal
medications or sunglasses or other off-topic stuff that appears  in
groups that we read.

Fran, I hope you don't mind if I respond.

The encouragement comes from attacking the counter point, Trevor now
knows that he can post whatever anti-gun rants he likes on
aus.electronics, and others posting there will neither challenge or
question him, however anybody posting an alternative viewpoint will be
hounded by all those "not interested" ones.

1. What Trevor "now knows" is immaterial. As far as I can tell, there
is no advantage to Trevor, (or anyone) posting material to people who
ignore it.

2. If he "now knows" it, and you don't like this this is surely your
fault. After all, if you had done what the subscribers to
aus.electronics had done -- i.e. ignore his stuff, he wouldn't know
it.

3. It's not clear that Trevor was even aware that his stuff was being
x-posted to aus.electronics as *he didn't add this to the follow ups*

Going to disagree there Fran, Tosspot previously posted his rants on
rec.audio.opinion and aus.hi-fi, but shot through as soon as he was
challenged about it.

No John, what Trevor does in other NGs has no bearing on how you
should respond to him here.

I beg to differ, you expect us to behave like gentlemen while this
idiot launches his anti-gun venom from any direction he can? You're
dreaming.

It seems that rec.audio.opinion is a place where it's open slather for
trolls, so what you or Trevor do there seems not to matter.

As to aus.hi-fi it seems that putting aside people spoofing him, he
hasn't actually started a thread there on guns recently.

I did come across you claiming that you had to go after Trevor because
he was "seeking to destroy my way of life".





4. As tempting as it can be to see this place as some cyber version of
"mortal kombat" in which you (why you?) are moved to confront your
enemy wherever he appears, you should resist this. I am a person of
strong views, and yet I make no attempt to ensure that everyone who
says things I don't agree with on usenet is answered. That's too big a
task and in any event, it would imply a monstrous and unhealthy ego.
If in your opinion, someone is talking nonsense, you have to assume
that at least some others will notice because you John-Melb are not
uniquely insightful. Others will no doubt have followed the path you
have to what you see as truth and wisdom, even if they don't shout it
from the rooftops, and those who may wish to develop nonsense will be
challeneged when they offer it in places where people are interested
in the topic.

It's not surprising that they object to someone posting an
"alternative opinion" because they weren't interested in the original
opinion and now the person posting off-topic has someone with which to
continue posting off-topic. Your inference that this goes to content
is unjustified.

Really? other than content, what difference in the differing posts?

Sequence and continuity. The people ignoring the post as off-topic
were hoping that they'd see no more of the off-topic stuff. Telling
someone to take it someplace else rarely works, often triggers more
off-tiopic posts and is pointless if you believe the post was not
intentional. Once someone answers the off-topic post, the way is open
to a lot more, so it's not surprising that once that Rubicon has been
crossed, people get irritated in particular with the people seen as
opening the floodgates ( to mix a metaphor).

I think the floodgates were well and truely opened with Trevor's
"normal people" and gun dealers selling to criminals remarks.

2. If you really believed that Trevor was being encouraged to post his
"off topic, anti-gun  rants here" and that the responses to you were
driven by political sympathy for the gun control position, you might
well wonder why

Looking at the apparent depth of feeling expressed, I think that
decision was made long before any of this started.

Look. There's no doubt that the whole issue is a highly emotive one.
That old saying "when someone mentions culture I reach for my gun"
applies, but I think you are mistaken in attributing the responses
here to animus towards your position on gun rights. As far as I can
tell, regardless of their views on the issue, people here want
discussion confined to electronics and closely related matters. You
are not only breaching that aspiration but, along with with "Thomas"
threatening to punish the group by spamming them for giving what you
mistakenly see tacit endorsement of Trevor's views. Can't you see that
from their POV this sounds like bullying? Like collective punishment?
Are you really surprised that you are getting negative responses?

Yep, I aware of the concept of collective punishment, kinda like all
the "rednecks, reactionaries and rambos" remarks directed at people
like me because some nutter runs amok with a gun in another state?

No. That's a sweeping generalisation. Collective punishment is when
you punish a cohort because of some action you don't like of a
minority -- like Israel and the Gaza Strip (or vice versa, suicide
bombings directed at Israelis as revenge for attacks on Gaza). The
concept of air war is collective punishment when the bombing is of
general areas rather than specific military targets.

Kinda like Australia for gun owners in 1996 and 2002?

You've dodged here John-Melb because the question is about what others
are entitled to make of your threats to attack the group for their
failure to do your bidding in relation to Trevor's material on guns
appearing in aus.electronics.





a) these people would be interested in the other side of the debate.
If they really are hostile, what's the point of posting? Surely they
will already be aware of the pro-gun claims and have rejected them on
one ground or another.

b) Why wouldn't they appear in gun discussion groups and take it up
there?

Your justification seems to be that people in aus.electronics are
guilty of being insufficiently rude to Trevor and accordingly, you
mean to punish them for "giving aid and comfort" to him by posting
your screeds to aus.electronics. In short, it's not about debate. It's
about getting even with Trevor and anyone who tolerates him because
you don't like him or his ideas.

No Fran, it's about debate, Trevor's opinions,  despite being off
topic are welcome there, any differing opinion, is not.

There's simply no evidence that ignoring Trevor's posts implies
endorsement. Most of what is posted in aus.politics offends me at some
level but I respond to only a fraction of it. I'm certainly not
welcoming the views or rightwing bigots by not answering them.

Of course not, the endorsement comes from "ignoring" anti-gun posts
and then flying off the handle at "pro-gun" posts.

One can't infer that because they failed to respond to Trevor but
responded to you that it was the direction of your content that
troubled them. Trevor regularly posts in aus.electronics on topics
that fit the group's purpose. You do not. You are an outsider in
aus.electronics and Trevor is not, so ceteris paribus does not apply.
All else but the content is not equal.

Lately he's been posting on topics that don't fit the group's purpose,
and others there don't seem to mind.

This reflects rather poorly on you.

Perhaps it does, but considering the vilifiation I've received over
the last decade or so, it is a learned response.

Then with the greatest of respect and genuine regard for your
wellbeing, you must unlearn it. This can lead nowhere good for you. No
amount of payback or "ROFLs" will salve your pain -- so much is clear
from your admission above -- you are, by your own admission, not
acting freely but in knee jerk mode. You are driven by psychic pain --
angst if you prefer.

Well I'm pretty familiar with knee-jerk reactions

Apparently

You need to stop making so much in here about you -- your rights to
respond; to get even; to correct the ledger. It's not about you and
how people think of you or the things you deem important. It's about
issues people want and don't want to discuss and their right not to be
bothered by the intrusion of noise into their chosen part of
cyberspace and certainly their right not to be harassed by someone
who, to them, surely appears to be using aus.electronics to deal with
their own feelings of hurt and marginalisation.

No, I'm using aus.electronics to respond to an anti-gun zealots rants,
because, that's where they're being posted.

That is where some have *arrived* as an incident to others x-posting.
There's no need for you to contest the issue in aus.electronics, and
had you responded to Trevor in one of the groups it was on-topic for
and trimmed aus.electronics, it would not have continued to appear
there.

But it has continued to appear there, and there is every need to
respond on aus.electronics because that's where the comments appeared.

My friendly advice would be to reassess what is important to you in
this place and to put some distance between what you write about and
you, the human being. Usenet is a place for batting about ideas. You
don't have to win all the time and there being few real ways of
determining who won anyway, the question should be moot.

I know what is important to me, and the concept that an anti-gun
zealot can post his remarks on aus.electronics without challenge
whilst and alternative view is attacked is something I find fairly
offensive.

The question is -- why?

Maybe John has some respect for freedom of speech

I hear of rants against action on climate change being posted all over
the internet. But you know what? I'm not offended. I disagree, and
sometimes (very occasionally) I respond but I'm not offended. That's
the way the world is. People get to rant and vent but in the end,
whether more rant against my views or in my favour is moot. I don't
see it as my job to confront every rant in the universe I don't like.
At worst I note "oh ... another person who is ranting about [...]"

Why wouldn't you focus on defending your way of life in fora where
people accept your terms, or at least think them germane?

Because Trevor is attacking our way of life on aus.electronics, rather
hard to understand isn't it........

Fran- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

 

[John - Melb]

On Jul 9, 11:47 pm, keithr <ke...@nowhere.com.au> wrote:

So you are taking on the role of off topic policemen for the internet?
that should keep you busy

Except for aus.electronics, you seem to be doing a real good job there
just by yourself
<SARCASM MODE OFF>

 

[regn.pickford]

"Fran" <Fran.Beta@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:09ebaa91-2f63-44ae-8c9f-2e8c465da9c2@z4g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 8, 6:48 am, "regn.pickford" <r...@mysoul.cop.au> wrote:

"John - Melb" <mcnamara_j...@hotmail.com> wrote in
messagenews:9d1a8d56-4488-47a6-aeb8-521d4d984ead@12g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 6, 6:30 am, "regn.pickford" <r...@mysoul.cop.au> wrote:

"Dennis" <den...@nowhere.com> wrote in message

news:4a50ad82$0$2832$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...

The vast majority in aus.electronics don't really care. Lets not
trash
our
working ng's by crossposting irrelevant topics.

You're on record as having asked **Trevor not to post OT ?

Of course not, what a silly question, Trevor's one of their long
standing and most venerated posters

Then it mustn't have come up about **Trevor's belief that
obtaining or possessing inanimate objects like Electronic smoke
alarms, Electronic fire control systems or fire extinguishers means you
are a pyromaniac in self denial and want to start fires.


That's just a silly strawman. Without taking a view on the claim that
all gun owners are putative serial killers, the structure of the
analogy is 180 deg away from the gun claim.

From the perpective where electronic smoke alarms or extinguishers
are defensive and hopefully never used in a defensive role to protect self,
family
or community they are not diffeent from firearms.

It is silly to believe possessing one means you are `possessed` by
evil to commit evil..

You don't have an electronic smoke alarm unless you intend to use it.



Obviously.

I have smoke alarms and I hope they will operate if a fire starts.

They aren't used till they sense particles in the air and trip their alarm..
- till then they are quietly irradiating you with nooclear radiation 8^0

http://www.epa.gov/rpdweb00/sources/smoke_alarm.html

There is a fire extinguisher in my classroom. It is tested every year
by a professional. I will use it if the need arises.

Hopefully you get enough training in the proper use of extinguishers
to be capable and experienced with their effective use to compliment
any training with evacuation procedures.

 

[John - Melb]

On Jul 10, 6:27 am, "regn.pickford" <r...@mysoul.cop.au> wrote:

"Fran" <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:09ebaa91-2f63-44ae-8c9f-2e8c465da9c2@z4g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 8, 6:48 am, "regn.pickford" <r...@mysoul.cop.au> wrote:





"John - Melb" <mcnamara_j...@hotmail.com> wrote in
messagenews:9d1a8d56-4488-47a6-aeb8-521d4d984ead@12g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 6, 6:30 am, "regn.pickford" <r...@mysoul.cop.au> wrote:

"Dennis" <den...@nowhere.com> wrote in message

news:4a50ad82$0$2832$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...

The vast majority in aus.electronics don't really care. Lets not
trash
our
working ng's by crossposting irrelevant topics.

You're on record as having asked **Trevor not to post OT ?

Of course not, what a silly question, Trevor's one of their long
standing and most venerated posters

Then it mustn't have come up about **Trevor's belief that
obtaining or possessing inanimate objects like Electronic smoke
alarms, Electronic fire control systems or fire extinguishers means you
are a pyromaniac in self denial and want to start fires.

That's just a silly strawman. Without taking a view on the claim that
all gun owners are putative serial killers, the structure of the
analogy is 180 deg away from the gun claim.

From the perpective where electronic smoke alarms or extinguishers
are defensive and  hopefully never used in a defensive role to protect self,
family
or community they are not diffeent from firearms.

It is silly to believe possessing one means you are  `possessed` by
evil to commit evil..

Not really, hasn't our favourite zealot previously claimed that there
is ample evidence that the mere possesion of an inanimate object is
capable of changing a cognitive persons intent?

You don't have an electronic smoke alarm unless you intend to use it.

Obviously.
I have smoke alarms and I hope they will operate if a fire starts.

They aren't used till they sense particles in the air and trip their alarm..
- till then they are quietly irradiating you with nooclear radiation 8^0

http://www.epa.gov/rpdweb00/sources/smoke_alarm.html

There is a fire extinguisher in my classroom. It is tested every year
by a professional. I will use it if the need arises.

Hopefully you get enough training in the proper use of extinguishers
to be  capable and experienced with their effective use to compliment
any training with evacuation procedures.- Hide quoted text -

That's a very relevant comment, you'd be surprised how many people

during fire awareness training grab the wrong bloody extinguiser for
the type of fire.
> - Show quoted text -

 

[regn.pickford]

"John - Melb" <mcnamara_john@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cd991547-f447-4d9b-bef8-13ba2018df94@g7g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 10, 6:27 am, "regn.pickford" <r...@mysoul.cop.au> wrote:

"Fran" <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:09ebaa91-2f63-44ae-8c9f-2e8c465da9c2@z4g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 8, 6:48 am, "regn.pickford" <r...@mysoul.cop.au> wrote:





"John - Melb" <mcnamara_j...@hotmail.com> wrote in
messagenews:9d1a8d56-4488-47a6-aeb8-521d4d984ead@12g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 6, 6:30 am, "regn.pickford" <r...@mysoul.cop.au> wrote:

"Dennis" <den...@nowhere.com> wrote in message

news:4a50ad82$0$2832$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...

The vast majority in aus.electronics don't really care. Lets not
trash
our
working ng's by crossposting irrelevant topics.

You're on record as having asked **Trevor not to post OT ?

Of course not, what a silly question, Trevor's one of their long
standing and most venerated posters

Then it mustn't have come up about **Trevor's belief that
obtaining or possessing inanimate objects like Electronic smoke
alarms, Electronic fire control systems or fire extinguishers means you
are a pyromaniac in self denial and want to start fires.

That's just a silly strawman. Without taking a view on the claim that
all gun owners are putative serial killers, the structure of the
analogy is 180 deg away from the gun claim.

From the perpective where electronic smoke alarms or extinguishers
are defensive and hopefully never used in a defensive role to protect
self,
family
or community they are not diffeent from firearms.

It is silly to believe possessing one means you are `possessed` by
evil to commit evil..

Not really, hasn't our favourite zealot previously claimed that there
is ample evidence that the mere possesion of an inanimate object is
capable of changing a cognitive persons intent?

I have been at odds with ` **T ' once or twice. He's a difficult poster
to pin down, actually, impossible to pin down as he completely fails
to acknowledge when your arguement has superiority.

His arguement is based simply on "if there are no firearms then people will
not
be killed /injured./maimed with firearms".

A perfect example is he does not accept the drug wars in Victoria killing
25+ people over a few years are _linked_ as a `mass killing` because
they did not happen on the same day. Which allows him to preach
Howard's gun laws of 1996 have been effective in preventing mass killings
(with firearms).

nonsense of course.

You don't have an electronic smoke alarm unless you intend to use it.

Obviously.
I have smoke alarms and I hope they will operate if a fire starts.

They aren't used till they sense particles in the air and trip their
alarm..
- till then they are quietly irradiating you with nooclear radiation 8^0

http://www.epa.gov/rpdweb00/sources/smoke_alarm.html

There is a fire extinguisher in my classroom. It is tested every year
by a professional. I will use it if the need arises.

Hopefully you get enough training in the proper use of extinguishers
to be capable and experienced with their effective use to compliment
any training with evacuation procedures.- Hide quoted text -

That's a very relevant comment, you'd be surprised how many people
during fire awareness training grab the wrong bloody extinguiser for
the type of fire.

I know an example on one occasion where a young lady (whom I dated )
fainted when she came out from some back room and found the oil cooking
fryers on fire.(fish n chips shop)
So the training has to be pretty comprehensive if you intend to get around
basic human reactions to imminent disaster.

 

[John - Melb]

On Jul 10, 3:23 pm, "regn.pickford" <r...@mysoul.cop.au> wrote:

"John - Melb" <mcnamara_j...@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:cd991547-f447-4d9b-bef8-13ba2018df94@g7g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 10, 6:27 am, "regn.pickford" <r...@mysoul.cop.au> wrote:





"Fran" <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:09ebaa91-2f63-44ae-8c9f-2e8c465da9c2@z4g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 8, 6:48 am, "regn.pickford" <r...@mysoul.cop.au> wrote:

"John - Melb" <mcnamara_j...@hotmail.com> wrote in
messagenews:9d1a8d56-4488-47a6-aeb8-521d4d984ead@12g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 6, 6:30 am, "regn.pickford" <r...@mysoul.cop.au> wrote:

"Dennis" <den...@nowhere.com> wrote in message

news:4a50ad82$0$2832$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...

The vast majority in aus.electronics don't really care. Lets not
trash
our
working ng's by crossposting irrelevant topics.

You're on record as having asked **Trevor not to post OT ?

Of course not, what a silly question, Trevor's one of their long
standing and most venerated posters

Then it mustn't have come up about **Trevor's belief that
obtaining or possessing inanimate objects like Electronic smoke
alarms, Electronic fire control systems or fire extinguishers means you
are a pyromaniac in self denial and want to start fires.

That's just a silly strawman. Without taking a view on the claim that
all gun owners are putative serial killers, the structure of the
analogy is 180 deg away from the gun claim.

From the perpective where electronic smoke alarms or extinguishers
are defensive and hopefully never used in a defensive role to protect
self,
family
or community they are not diffeent from firearms.

It is silly to believe possessing one means you are `possessed` by
evil to commit evil..
Not really, hasn't our favourite zealot previously claimed that there
is ample evidence that the mere possesion of an inanimate object is
capable of changing a cognitive persons intent?

I have been at odds with ` **T ' once or twice. He's a difficult poster
to pin down, actually, impossible to pin down as he completely fails
to acknowledge when your arguement has  superiority.

His arguement is based simply on "if there are no firearms then people will
not
be killed /injured./maimed with firearms".

My issues with the man go beyond that,

I don't care if it can or cannot admit publicly when he's wrong,
that's his business not mine. Although I must admit his constant
ranting of "Non-Sequitur" every time he doesn't want to admit he's
wrong is somewhat galling.

What pisses me totally with him is the way he'll post something here
which is demonstrated to be erroneous, like his claims about only
about 200 DGU's in the US every here, it's been proven a fib so many
times here. Then he'll post the exact same bullshit on a totally
unrelated forum like rec.audio.opinion, aus.hi-fi and now
aus.electronics believing that the folks there don't know enough about
the subject and will therefore believe him.

The other thing is the way he'll claim something and when challenged
about will refuse to provide any evidence to support his claim, will
claim something which is totally untrue, like the time he claimed FBI-
UCR for 1976-86 were available on the FBU website, or will come up
with some bullshit like "get a 9 year old to explain it to you"

A perfect example is he does not accept the  drug wars in Victoria killing
25+ people over a few years are _linked_ as a `mass killing` because
they did not happen on the same day. Which allows him to preach
Howard's  gun laws of 1996 have been effective in preventing mass killings
(with firearms).

nonsense of course.





You don't have an electronic smoke alarm unless you intend to use it.

Obviously.
I have smoke alarms and I hope they will operate if a fire starts.

They aren't used till they sense particles in the air and trip their
alarm..
- till then they are quietly irradiating you with nooclear radiation 8^0

http://www.epa.gov/rpdweb00/sources/smoke_alarm.html

There is a fire extinguisher in my classroom. It is tested every year
by a professional. I will use it if the need arises.

Hopefully you get enough training in the proper use of extinguishers
to be capable and experienced with their effective use to compliment
any training with evacuation procedures.- Hide quoted text -

That's a very relevant comment, you'd be surprised how many people
during fire awareness training grab the wrong bloody extinguiser for
the type of fire.

I know an example on one occasion where a young lady (whom I dated )
fainted when she came out from some back room and found the oil cooking
 fryers on fire.(fish n chips shop)
So the training has to be pretty comprehensive if you intend to get around
basic human reactions to imminent disaster.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

 

[Blinky Bill]

"John - Melb" <mcnamara_john@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b02f172e-f345-4a79-93fc-5537c3398cc0@32g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 10, 6:01 pm, "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com> wrote:
<SNIP>

And Tosspot's foul-mouthed sock puppet finally makes an
appearance...........
----------------------------------------------------------------

So you snip the thread and try to change the subject to a personal attack.
ROTFLMAO. Why don't you act your age, or at least the age you claim.

 

[John - Melb]

On Jul 10, 6:01 pm, "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com> wrote:
<SNIP>

And Tosspot's foul-mouthed sock puppet finally makes an
appearance...........

 

[Blinky Bill]

"John - Melb" <mcnamara_john@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:483eafb4-6c95-4e11-8279-d66785a541f1@c2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 10, 6:48 pm, "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com> wrote:

"John - Melb" <mcnamara_j...@hotmail.com> wrote in
messagenews:b02f172e-f345-4a79-93fc-5537c3398cc0@32g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 10, 6:01 pm, "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com> wrote:
SNIP

And Tosspot's foul-mouthed sock puppet finally makes an
appearance...........
----------------------------------------------------------------

So you snip the thread and try to change the subject to a personal attack.
ROTFLMAO. Why don't you act your age, or at least the age you claim.

Showed up to giive us some more of you public toilet comments have you?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You enjoy reading about yourself, don't you LMAO


Who is your puppet-master tonight shitcan? Is it piggy, or fartz or sputum?

Here is just some of your "bluff, bluster and bullshit".


- "I do have friends that are gay" .. "Unlike you cock-head, I don't
classify people on the basis of their sexual orientation"

LMAO No further comment necessary. He displays his usual tenuous grasp on
English and logic.





- "I've never met a gun owner who claims to be able to
diagnose a medical condition over the internet, that interesting
belief appears solely the domain of the anti-gun zealot."

Despite the fact that dozens of web-sites tout the services of on-line
doctors.







- "South Australia finished their buyback in Dec 96, all other states had
completed the buy-back process by mid 97."

Despite the fact that even the SSAA says it ended in SA on 28 February 1997
and in the other states on 30 September 1997

http://www.ssaa.org.au/research/1997/1997-08-26_thanks-participants-firearms-buyback.html





- ". in the period immediately folowing the buy-back, there was a
significant increase in the criminal misuse of firearms."

But piggy-shitcan can't provide evidence of this when asked - he provided
evidence of what happened DURING the buyback





- There is a letter from Tim Fischer on the SSAA web site.

But nobody else could find this letter on the SSAA web-site.







- The FBI web site doesn't show UCR figures.

Trivially easy to prove an obvious lie.







- The results of a survey become "tainted" because they are cited by
somebody that piggy-shitcan disagrees with.

Despite many requests for elaboration on this puzzling theory of statistics,
piggy-shitcan was never able to explain the nature of this "tainting".



Piggy-shitcan get "all precious" about people who he claims are
"foul-mouthed" but calls people "cunt" and "fucking pathetic".



Piggy-shitcan regularly lies about what people have written.

He accused Phil Smythe of stating "we can reduce shooting murders by
reducing the tenure of firearms licences". Does he behave like an adult when
he is called on his lie? Of course not - his response is to write "Or gee,
sweetie, you're shouting, have I touched a raw nerve".

When commenting on the study by Killias, piggy wrote "He in part concluded
there was a weak correlation between total homicide and gun ownership."

The actual words used by Killias to describe the correlation were
"substantial" and "reasonably strong".





Like all would-be bullies, piggy-shitcan thinks the rules that he makes
about others don't apply to him because he is a special case - he is
probably right about that but not for the reason he thinks. ROTFLMAO

 

[John - Melb]

On Jul 10, 6:48 pm, "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com> wrote:

"John - Melb" <mcnamara_j...@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:b02f172e-f345-4a79-93fc-5537c3398cc0@32g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 10, 6:01 pm, "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com> wrote:
SNIP

And Tosspot's foul-mouthed sock puppet finally makes an
appearance...........
----------------------------------------------------------------

So you snip the thread and try to change the subject to a personal attack..
ROTFLMAO. Why don't you act your age, or at least the age you claim.

Showed up to giive us some more of you public toilet comments have you?

 

[regn.pickford]

Hey John - Melb,

looks like you got yerself a serious `fan'

"Blinky Bill" <nospam@anytime.com> wrote in message
news:h375nl$t0g$1@news.eternal-september.org...

"John - Melb" <mcnamara_john@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:483eafb4-6c95-4e11-8279-d66785a541f1@c2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 10, 6:48 pm, "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com> wrote:
"John - Melb" <mcnamara_j...@hotmail.com> wrote in
messagenews:b02f172e-f345-4a79-93fc-5537c3398cc0@32g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 10, 6:01 pm, "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com> wrote:
SNIP

And Tosspot's foul-mouthed sock puppet finally makes an
appearance...........
----------------------------------------------------------------

So you snip the thread and try to change the subject to a personal
attack.
ROTFLMAO. Why don't you act your age, or at least the age you claim.

Showed up to giive us some more of you public toilet comments have you?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You enjoy reading about yourself, don't you LMAO


Who is your puppet-master tonight shitcan? Is it piggy, or fartz or
sputum?

Here is just some of your "bluff, bluster and bullshit".


- "I do have friends that are gay" .. "Unlike you cock-head, I don't
classify people on the basis of their sexual orientation"

LMAO No further comment necessary. He displays his usual tenuous grasp on
English and logic.





- "I've never met a gun owner who claims to be able to
diagnose a medical condition over the internet, that interesting
belief appears solely the domain of the anti-gun zealot."

Despite the fact that dozens of web-sites tout the services of on-line
doctors.







- "South Australia finished their buyback in Dec 96, all other states had
completed the buy-back process by mid 97."

Despite the fact that even the SSAA says it ended in SA on 28 February
1997 and in the other states on 30 September 1997

http://www.ssaa.org.au/research/1997/1997-08-26_thanks-participants-firearms-buyback.html





- ". in the period immediately folowing the buy-back, there was a
significant increase in the criminal misuse of firearms."

But piggy-shitcan can't provide evidence of this when asked - he provided
evidence of what happened DURING the buyback





- There is a letter from Tim Fischer on the SSAA web site.

But nobody else could find this letter on the SSAA web-site.







- The FBI web site doesn't show UCR figures.

Trivially easy to prove an obvious lie.







- The results of a survey become "tainted" because they are cited by
somebody that piggy-shitcan disagrees with.

Despite many requests for elaboration on this puzzling theory of
statistics, piggy-shitcan was never able to explain the nature of this
"tainting".



Piggy-shitcan get "all precious" about people who he claims are
"foul-mouthed" but calls people "cunt" and "fucking pathetic".



Piggy-shitcan regularly lies about what people have written.

He accused Phil Smythe of stating "we can reduce shooting murders by
reducing the tenure of firearms licences". Does he behave like an adult
when he is called on his lie? Of course not - his response is to write
"Or gee, sweetie, you're shouting, have I touched a raw nerve".

When commenting on the study by Killias, piggy wrote "He in part concluded
there was a weak correlation between total homicide and gun ownership."

The actual words used by Killias to describe the correlation were
"substantial" and "reasonably strong".





Like all would-be bullies, piggy-shitcan thinks the rules that he makes
about others don't apply to him because he is a special case - he is
probably right about that but not for the reason he thinks. ROTFLMAO

 

[John - Melb]

On Jul 11, 10:12 am, F Murtz <hagg...@hotmail.com> wrote:

regn.pickford wrote:
Hey John - Melb,

looks like you got yerself a serious `fan'

There is a school of thought that Blinky bill and Trevor are one and the
same





"Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com> wrote in message
news:h375nl$t0g$1@news.eternal-september.org...
"John - Melb" <mcnamara_j...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:483eafb4-6c95-4e11-8279-d66785a541f1@c2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com....
On Jul 10, 6:48 pm, "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com> wrote:
"John - Melb" <mcnamara_j...@hotmail.com> wrote in
messagenews:b02f172e-f345-4a79-93fc-5537c3398cc0@32g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 10, 6:01 pm, "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com> wrote:
SNIP

And Tosspot's foul-mouthed sock puppet finally makes an
appearance...........
----------------------------------------------------------------

So you snip the thread and try to change the subject to a personal
attack.
ROTFLMAO. Why don't you act your age, or at least the age you claim.
Showed up to giive us some more of you public toilet comments have you?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------­---
You enjoy reading about yourself, don't you LMAO

Who is your puppet-master tonight shitcan? Is it piggy, or fartz or
sputum?

Here is just some of your "bluff, bluster and bullshit".

- "I do have friends that are gay" .. "Unlike you cock-head, I don't
classify people on the basis of their sexual orientation"

LMAO No further comment necessary. He displays his usual tenuous grasp on
English and logic.

- "I've never met a gun owner who claims to be able to
diagnose a medical condition over the internet, that interesting
belief appears solely the domain of the anti-gun zealot."

Despite the fact that dozens of web-sites tout the services of on-line
doctors.

- "South Australia finished their buyback in Dec 96, all other states had
completed the buy-back process by mid 97."

Despite the fact that even the SSAA says it ended in SA on  28 February
1997 and in the other states on 30 September 1997

http://www.ssaa.org.au/research/1997/1997-08-26_thanks-participants-f....

- ". in the period immediately folowing the buy-back, there was a
significant increase in the criminal misuse of firearms."

But piggy-shitcan can't provide evidence of this when asked - he provided
evidence of what happened DURING the buyback

- There is a letter from Tim Fischer on the SSAA web site.

But nobody else could find this letter on the SSAA web-site.

- The FBI web site doesn't show UCR figures.

Trivially easy to prove an obvious lie.

- The results of a survey become "tainted" because they are cited by
somebody that piggy-shitcan disagrees with.

Despite many requests for elaboration on this puzzling theory of
statistics, piggy-shitcan was never able to explain the nature of this
"tainting".

Piggy-shitcan get "all precious" about people who he claims are
"foul-mouthed" but calls people "cunt" and "fucking pathetic".

Piggy-shitcan regularly lies about what people have written.

He accused Phil Smythe of stating "we can reduce shooting murders by
reducing the tenure of firearms licences". Does he behave like an adult
when he is called on his lie? Of course not - his response is to write
"Or gee, sweetie, you're shouting, have I touched a raw nerve".

When commenting on the study by Killias, piggy wrote "He in part concluded
there was a weak correlation between total homicide and gun ownership."

The actual words used by Killias to describe the correlation were
"substantial" and "reasonably strong".

Like all would-be bullies, piggy-shitcan thinks the rules that he makes
about others don't apply to him because he is a special case - he is
probably right about that but not for the reason he thinks. ROTFLMAO- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Mr Murtz and Reg,

Yes, It appears that Trevors Tosspot's foul mouthed sock-puppet has
created "Poor Litle Fragile Johnny Baby's Porky List". I must admit
being a little concerned about it, as they say, "imitation is the
sincerest form of flattery" and it appears that Trevor has taken a
shine to me.

Blowie hasn't had a go at me for a little while now, it's quite
amazing, Trevor's mates over on aus.electronics get all upset at the
thought of some redneck responding to Trevor's O/T anti-gun driven on
their group, and suddenly Blowie appears and comes uot swinging.

 

[John - Melb]

On Jul 11, 12:06 pm, "Trevor Wilson"
<tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

**The 'school of thought' that you refer to, is that which you and John
(shitcan) McNamara went to. It is the same school that the intellectually
handicapped go to.

They even use the same nick-names for others..................ROFL

 

[Thomas]

On Jul 11, 11:25 am, "Trevor Wilson"
<tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

**Feel free to list three arguments that you feel I have failed to "win". Be
certain to include the entire text. Your use of paraphrasing is
unnacceptable. Your inability to list three cites will invaldate your claim.

You're kidding right, the full text of every arguement you've lost
would cause Usenet to go into meltdown.

When you get spanked for telling fibs on gun related forums, and then
scuttle away and post the same anti-gun assertions on places like
rec.audio.opinion, aus.hi-fi, aus.tv, aus.legal and now
aus.electronics - you've lost the arguement.

When you post unsubstantiated assertions about gun dealers using
gunshows to sell guns to criminals, but fail to provide ant evidence
to support thos assertions when asked to - you've lost the arguement.

When you post unsubstantiated and possibly dematory claims that the
NSW Shooter's Party is seeking to arm criminals, and fail to provide
any evidence when asked to support that assertion - you've lost the
arguement.

When you loudly claim that you never crosspost, and yet your identical
posts appear at exactly the same time on aus.tv, aus.legal and
aus.electronics - you've lost the arguement.

When you claim you only deal in facts at about the same time you're
claiming your local library keeps Lotts work in the fiction section -
you've lost the arguement.

When another poster asks to explain your assertions and the only reply
you can come up with is "non-sequitur or "ask a nine year old to
explain it to you" - you've lost the arguement.

When you claim to have a friend capable of stopping and restarting his
heart at will whilst target shooting - you've lost the arguement.

When you claim to be able to diagnose medical or mental conditions
over the internet without ever having done the necessary training -
you've lost the arguement.

When you've got to rely on foul-mouthed sock-puppets like Blinky Blonk
and No-One - you've lost the arguement.

 

[Thomas]

On Jul 11, 11:25 am, "Trevor Wilson"

tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
**Feel free to list three arguments that you feel I have failed to "win". Be
certain to include the entire text. Your use of paraphrasing is
unnacceptable. Your inability to list three cites will invaldate your claim.

And a few more.

When you quote the FBI-UCR for the years 1976-86, and another poster
asks for a reference, and you claim it's available on the FBI website,
and it isn't - you've lost the arguement.

When another poster asks you to cite a reference and you reply www.google.com
- you've lost the arguement.

Should I continue?