Check Out This Month's "Microwaves & RF" Magazine

[Roger Gt]

"Blair P. Houghton" <b@p.h> wrote in message
news:cB3Hc.19164684$Id.3161139@news.easynews.com...
: Roger Gt <not@here.net> wrote:
: >
: >"Blair P. Houghton" <b@p.h> wrote in message
: >news:e5JGc.163595$ef4.19665@news.easynews.com...
: >: Mark Fergerson <nunya@biz.ness> wrote:
: >: >Greg Pierce wrote:
: >: >> You know Moore is full of shit when a Lefty like
Christopher
: >Hitchens
: >: >> debunks his film. Check this out:
: >http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/
: >: > Bookmarked for use against the stupid. Thank you.
: >:
: >: Hitchens isn't a Liberal. He's a Socialist. Only
: >: ignorami equate the two.
: >:
: >: "Liberals founded America."
: >
: >Yes it is true, the founders were liberal, back when it meant
: >something entirely different!
:
: No, it still means the same thing. Except to idiots who
: listen to right-wing morons who have labeled anything they
: hate "liberal" to try to redifine the word by association.
:
: I.e., the Media were never Liberal on average, but because
: Limbaugh et al consistently referred to the Media as
: Liberal, that's what a generation of Americans came
: to believe was the Liberal slant. The result is that
: Right-Wing screed houses like FOX News can appear Centrist.
: --Blair

Tell that to my left wing History teacher. He will laugh at you!

So will I!

 

In <flL2o49H2L4u39D5B584WC3PI5WYQEyk@alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.amateur.male>, "tholen@antispam.ham, the beady-eyed, geometrising flapper" <uvTx9syPQT4J@alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.amateur.male> writes:

In <KtzOktXgTH0IFE839B05yjyYfn60Q4Yj@alt.binaries.erotica.voyeurism>,
"tholen@antispam.ham, the keeper of the pantry"
F25V27FGdUgr@alt.binaries.erotica.voyeurism> writes:

In <ZUNLxORqMAOxC7A15C46NyaGWoDFumLL@alt.sex.escorts.ads>,
"tholen@antispam.ham, the defective, ascertaining hog"
CnyEr8bHZoZV@alt.sex.escorts.ads> writes:

chrisv writes:

How ironic, coming from someone who isn't educated enough
to know that OS/2, out of the box, supports security and
multiple processors.

How ironic, coming from tholen.

Where is the alleged irony, chrisv?

t h o l e n

Classic evasion.

How ironic.

Where is the alleged irony, chrisv?

Tholen!

Classic evasion.

No, you stupid fuck. "Tholen!" is the irony. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

For someone faking such an identity, I'm sure

Don't lie.

How ironic, coming from someone who just truncated my previous
response, while using a fake identity.

You won't get this at all, but others will.

On what basis do you speak for others?

You are the joke and that's the irony.

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, and rather ironic,
coming from someone faking an identity.

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Jim Thompson wrote:

On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 02:19:01 GMT, Blair P. Houghton <b@p.h> wrote:

Jim Thompson <thegreatone@example.com> wrote:
Letter-to-Editor in today's EV Tribune (Phoenix)....

Moore film falsely depicts flight of Saudis

Michael Moore's movie, "Fahrenheit 9/ll" informs us I that,
immediately after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, while U.S.
airspace was closed to all commercial traffic, Bush arranged for a
special flight to secretly spirit Bush's friends, Bin Laden family
members, safely out of the country.

The reality is the bin Laden's didn't leave the U.S. until U.S.
airspace was re-opened and not at the arrangement of Bush but at the
urging of "terror czar" Richard Clark's of 9/11 commission fame, who
informed them that the U.S. couldn't ensure their safety.

I've heard that the film doesn't say it was Bush himself, but
his administration.

I've also heard that some people think the movie claims
that the flight occurred when airspace was closed, but
they think wrong because it clearly shows the flight taking
off after it was reopened.

But that's not what Mikey is saying in the sound-track. (I saw the
movie.)
--------------

Cite please!!
Not what *I* saw, merely your wishful thinking.

I'll get around to actually seeing the movie when someone
makes a charge against it that sticks.
---------------

Amen.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Greg Pierce wrote:

You know Moore is full of shit when a Lefty like Christopher Hitchens
debunks his film. Check this out: http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/

--
Greg
-------------------

Hitchens is no "Lefty", and anyway, the assertions he makes as to what
Michael Moore said contradict things I have heard Moore comment on,
such as the puzzlement by Hitchens who imagines that Moore surely must
be against the war on terror, which he isn't, and that he is merely
some simplistic peacenik, which again he isn't, or that be believes
Osama bin Laden is innocent merely because he asserts we should abide
our nation's principle of the presumption of innocence and the rule of
law in our courts!

This seems to confuse Hitchens so badly that he thinks Moore is surely
crazy to so solidly violate his own preconceived notions about him!!

Moore is in favor of the war on terror, and not even against the war in
Iran if it is carried out in a principled manner with our allies and
under UN scrutiny as we did with Bosnia, and in fact Moore states that
the Bush administration FAILED to use ENOUGH troops and weapons in
Afghanistan to prevent a lot of Taliban from escaping justice!!

Moore simply wants actions in the world to be carried out under the
UN authority, and our actions be carried out only under the auspices
of our historic American principles.

Bush's father GHW knew how to do that, but GW seems to be guided by
the insane cowboys of the old coldwar NSA.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Roger Gt wrote:

"Blair P. Houghton" <b@p.h> wrote in message
news:e5JGc.163595$ef4.19665@news.easynews.com...
: Mark Fergerson <nunya@biz.ness> wrote:
: >Greg Pierce wrote:
: >> You know Moore is full of shit when a Lefty like Christopher
Hitchens
: >> debunks his film. Check this out:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/
: > Bookmarked for use against the stupid. Thank you.
:
: Hitchens isn't a Liberal. He's a Socialist. Only
: ignorami equate the two.
:
: "Liberals founded America."

Yes it is true, the founders were liberal, back when it meant
something entirely different!
----------------------

No, it's just that the reactionaries who lied about THEM back THEN
were rich *BRITISH* feudalists and you could SHOOT them!

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Roger Gt wrote:

"Blair P. Houghton" <b@p.h> wrote in message
news:cB3Hc.19164684$Id.3161139@news.easynews.com...
: Roger Gt <not@here.net> wrote:
:
: >"Blair P. Houghton" <b@p.h> wrote in message
: >news:e5JGc.163595$ef4.19665@news.easynews.com...
: >: Mark Fergerson <nunya@biz.ness> wrote:
: >: >Greg Pierce wrote:
: >: >> You know Moore is full of shit when a Lefty like
Christopher
: >Hitchens
: >: >> debunks his film. Check this out:
: >http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/
: >: > Bookmarked for use against the stupid. Thank you.
: >:
: >: Hitchens isn't a Liberal. He's a Socialist. Only
: >: ignorami equate the two.
: >:
: >: "Liberals founded America."
:
: >Yes it is true, the founders were liberal, back when it meant
: >something entirely different!
:
: No, it still means the same thing. Except to idiots who
: listen to right-wing morons who have labeled anything they
: hate "liberal" to try to redifine the word by association.
:
: I.e., the Media were never Liberal on average, but because
: Limbaugh et al consistently referred to the Media as
: Liberal, that's what a generation of Americans came
: to believe was the Liberal slant. The result is that
: Right-Wing screed houses like FOX News can appear Centrist.
: --Blair

Tell that to my left wing History teacher. He will laugh at you!
---------------

You're merely lying about your teacher.

So will I!
--------------

And you laugh while lying, it gives you away.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[R. Steve Walz]

John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 11:21:11 -0700, Jim Thompson
thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

Letter-to-Editor in today's EV Tribune (Phoenix)....

Moore film falsely depicts flight of Saudis

Michael Moore's movie, "Fahrenheit 9/ll" informs us I that,
immediately after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, while U.S.
airspace was closed to all commercial traffic, Bush arranged for a
special flight to secretly spirit Bush's friends, Bin Laden family
members, safely out of the country.

The reality is the bin Laden's didn't leave the U.S. until U.S.
airspace was re-opened and not at the arrangement of Bush but at the
urging of "terror czar" Richard Clark's of 9/11 commission fame, who
informed them that the U.S. couldn't ensure their safety.

You remember him. He was the guy who told reporters in an August 2002
interview that Bush initiated a project, in the first week of
February, 2001, to "increase CIA resources, for example the covert
action, fivefold (over Clinton's efforts), to go after al-Qaida" and
then went on to make verbatim contradictions of such statements before
the 9/11 commission (with his new Bush-bash book just hitting the
markets).

Moore is laughing at us foolish Americans all the way to the bank.

DENIS EGAN
SCOTTSDALE





...Jim Thompson

Moore is just another step in the mindless cartoonization of American
politics, following in the footsteps of Ivans, Limbaugh, Conason, and
Coulter. Fortunately, we still have have a few thoughtful journalists,
and lots of people with common sense who inhabit the "flyover
territory" between the coasts. Americans are not, by nature, mean
people, and I expect an eventual reaction against all this meanness.

MM is especially annoying. He's getting rich off the American public
by telling us how stupid we are, thus proving himself correct.

John
--------------

I dare you to prove he is "getting rich". Just because it's all that
YOUR sort wants to do doesn't mean it's what everyone else wants, it
only means that you have a hard time identifying with non-criminals.

Your delusion is common in prisons.
-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Chuck Harris wrote:

I started out as an avid Democrat. All Marylanders must, I suppose.
As I started to get my career in place, I got pissed with the party's
attitude that the state knows what is best for you. At the last time
I looked, 1/3 of the US population works for the "government"... and
more than 50% of my income goes to taxes and fees. Is it any wonder
that the US standard of living is heading for the dump?

I spent a few years vacillating over whether abortion rights were
more important than gun ownership. I finally decided that with the
power that women have achieved in our society, it would be nearly
impossible for the "right-to-lifer's" to completely outlaw abortion,
so gun control became my litmus test for a candidate. If a candidate
was for gun control, I was against absolutely against him!

It is kind of paradoxical, that for the first part of my life as a voter
I fought for legalized abortion, a predominantly women's issue, and for
the second part, I fought against gun control, also a predominantly
women's issue.

My beliefs fit firmly in the libertarian camp, but that doesn't really
matter politically, as the libertarians are a hopeless party. If you
want gun control and legal abortion, you vote democrat. If you want
gun freedom, and abortion, you vote Republican. The women are never
going to allow abortion to become illegal again, so that makes abortion
pretty much a moot issue.

-Chuck
-------------------

So the question arises, if you have a brain, then why are you so
simplistic as to be a "litmus" voter? I like guns too, I see them
as the power of the Democratic Majority for Freedom and Economic
Equality. In other words, I'm a Communist.

And I'm VIOLENTLY Pro-Choice, which is hard to do without guns!!

But people are silly when they imagine that guns are a panacea
if they are going to permit the existence of desperate ghettos
and barrios. In AZ and such places there is a lot less inner
city and poor sururban violence, because you have fewer smaller
cities, so you imagine guns are good for everyone. As far as I'm
concerned, you should only be able to have guns at home if you're
willing to be a member of the militia, and I want a BIG fuckin'
militia to keep the Democracy informed and heavily armed against
the threat of the rich!! Like, come TRY and evict me and we'll
blow your fuckin' ass away!!

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[R. Steve Walz]

John Larkin wrote:

On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 11:57:45 -0700, Greg Pierce <trash.can@nospam.com
wrote:

As they say, gun control isn't about guns, it's about control.

It's about people being dead, instead of merely yelled at or bruised.

John
----------------

When yelling or bruising doesn't do enough good, you start shooting.
Then, for a while, people think the guns are the problem. But the
guns aren't the problem, the reasons people got pissed off are the
problem, and that comes from disenfranchisement in economic society
and nothing else!! Guns are for negotiating with for Economic Equality,
so you don't finally have to USE them, but so nobody gets away with
the kind of theft and crimes against humanity that the rich are
responsible for either!!! Whenever working people strike, and the
police show up with guns, the union should show up with weapons of
WAR! Only when everyone is equally terrified does equality and proper
respect for one another take place!

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Chuck Harris wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 11:57:45 -0700, Greg Pierce <trash.can@nospam.com
wrote:


As they say, gun control isn't about guns, it's about control.


It's about people being dead, instead of merely yelled at or bruised.

John

The largest mass murder that has ever occurred in the US was committed with
a jumbo jet. The second largest was committed with a bottle full of gasoline,
then, there was that truck full of fertilizer...

Knives, baseball bats, clubs, bricks, and fists have killed more people in
the US than guns ever will. Guns, however, have done an excellent job of
empowering the weak and allowing them to fend off violent attacks of all kinds...

And in warding off these attacks, most of the time, the gun is never even fired...
And when it is fired, it is usually with non fatal result.

-Chuck Harris
---------------

True, the gun, right after the gastrophetes (belly bow/crossbow) the
bow and arrow and the atlatl, have finally made the weak equal in
formidability to the strong. Finally the gun has made the very weakest
and least skilled nearly as potentially damgerous as the most vicious
bully. This escalation in weaponry is what finally made Majority
Democracy even possible!! Few people realize this, but the development
of these weapons virtually parallels the development of personal-level
democracy in political systems, and the more deadly and personally
hidable the weapon, and the more instantly usable, the closer we have
gotten to not merely political Democracy, but Economic Democracy and
equal wages for every human being's hour of labor, and the recognized
human right to a home unfettered by any feudal capitalist nobility of
inherited privilege or wealth over our lives. I hope that someday we
will finish the process with threat of the detonation of weapons of
mass destruction in rich neighborhoods if the crimes done to the poor
are not totally and entirely repaid and remediated. Only when we are
all equally terrified of one another will we all be free and equal!

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[R. Steve Walz]

John Larkin wrote:

On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 19:30:04 GMT, "Roger Gt" <not@here.net> wrote:


"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com
wrote in message
news:ucule0th723berupg7eo2ths1bfgtnh34e@4ax.com...
: On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 11:57:45 -0700, Greg Pierce
trash.can@nospam.com
: wrote:
:
: >As they say, gun control isn't about guns, it's about control.
: It's about people being dead, instead of merely yelled at or
bruised.
: John


"Gun Control" means hitting the intended target everytime!

Roger Gt


That's the theory, I guess. Fact is, the average gun owner is more
likely to kill his own kids than a burgler. Damned kids are just
around the house a lot more than burglers.

John
--------------------

Nope. Statistical nonsense. Guns are used without being fired to deter
violent crime FAR more than they ever kill anyone, including your own
kids.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[R. Steve Walz]

John Larkin wrote:

On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 21:23:42 GMT, James Beck
jim@reallykillersystems.com> wrote:

That's the theory, I guess. Fact is, the average gun owner is more
likely to kill his own kids than a burgler. Damned kids are just
around the house a lot more than burglers.

And where did you get that "fact"????
What a crock of crap.
If you don't like guns, fine, don't own one, but don't spout the same
old crap.

Actually, I like guns. I had a beautiful Ruger stainless
police-special revolver, but a burgler got it. I came in just as he
was leaving out the back door, figured out what was going on, and did
*not* chase him; it was full of '38 wad cutters, and I bet they hurt.
If I had entered a minute sooner, he probably would have shot me with
my gun, or maybe with his own.
--------------

Why wasn't it in a lock box bolted into concrete with lags?
Mine are! Now you've endangered everyone else!

But it's just a fact that the US has a
murder rate that's 10x or so that of other civilized countries, and
guns are mostly responsible; it's such an easy, almost antiseptic, way
to kill. Television shows and movies mostly glorify guns and the joy
of killing with them; it's hard to find a newspaper movie section that
doesn't have a couple of guns prominently displayed in the ads. The
very fact that gun lovers admire their weapons so much tells the
story.

I hear shots in the night often, as most people who live in big cities
do. I guess we'll just have to stay used to it.
--------------------------------

Nope, we don't have to, you merely vote to make possession of any
weapon that is not serialized as yours presumptive of deadly crime
and execute them summarily!

That will get rid of the urge to steal guns very very quickly!!

"That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there."

Rifles are good, because you can't conceal them very well.
-------------------

No, they are bad because you can tell who doesn't have one and
then they are targeted.

What would old George think of 12-year olds running around
with automatic pistols, killing the kids from down the block?
John
--------------------

What makes you think Orwell hadn't seen auto pistols in his era??
He lived 1903-1950! They have had auto pistols since the 1890s!!

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that R. Steve Walz <rstevew@armory.com>
wrote (in <40ED0D96.1F4A@armory.com&gt about 'For All the Michael Moore
Fans', on Thu, 8 Jul 2004:

Only when we are
all equally terrified of one another will we all be free and equal!

As striven for by the STASI in the DDR and the Red Guards in China, also
by Pol Pot. I don't want to be free and equal on those terms.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[tholen@antispam.ham, the]

tholen@antispam.ham wrote:

Still obsessed with a fake identity, eh?

Excellent self-*NUKE*, tholen.

 

[Chuck Harris]

John Larkin wrote:

On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 09:18:29 -0400, Chuck Harris
cf-NO-SPAM-harris@erols.com> wrote:


John Larkin wrote:



That's the theory, I guess. Fact is, the average gun owner is more
likely to kill his own kids than a burgler. Damned kids are just
around the house a lot more than burglers.

John

That silly statistic is utter BS!



Well, maybe *you* have more burglers around your house than you have
kids.

John

Ya, sure?

I guess now you are calling me, or my family, burglers?

The silly statistic that I was writing about, as you well know,
is the "43 to 1" BS that you were parroting. It comes straight
from a report by Kellerman published in the New England Journal
of Medicine. Kellerman was funded by Handgun Control Institute,
Jim Brady is their posterchild.

The "43 to 1" report has been proved to be intentionally misleading,
and well, just plain wrong many many times. Do a google on "43"
"guns", and "family", and you will find plenty written on its flaws.

One good link is a short paper published by SAMMI, and found on the
Baretta website:

http://www.berettausa.com/communities/home_prot/family.htm


-Chuck

 

[John Larkin]

On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 04:53:40 GMT, Spehro Pefhany
<speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:

On Thu, 8 Jul 2004 05:30:25 +0100, the renowned John Woodgate
jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that John Larkin <jjlarkin@highSNIPland
THIStechPLEASEnology.com> wrote (in <gmpoe0hot1ej85mc0fddkimb7vcnnb5a65@
4ax.com&gt about 'For All the Michael Moore Fans', on Wed, 7 Jul 2004:
you don't have to shoot
abalone.

Is that what I've been doing wrong all these years?

It's a lot easier to wait until the ama come up with the abolone, then
shoot them. They're women, so don't lead by as much as you would with
men (but more than you would with abalone).

My production manager is Portugese (from the Azores, actually) and
dives for abs off the Marin coast. Ever had an abalone sandwich?

John

 

[John Larkin]

On Thu, 8 Jul 2004 05:30:25 +0100, John Woodgate
<jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that John Larkin <jjlarkin@highSNIPland
THIStechPLEASEnology.com> wrote (in <gmpoe0hot1ej85mc0fddkimb7vcnnb5a65@
4ax.com&gt about 'For All the Michael Moore Fans', on Wed, 7 Jul 2004:

you don't have to shoot
abalone.

Is that what I've been doing wrong all these years?

I slice them very thin, and pound the slices with a spiked mallet
until they look like lace. Dust with flour, sautee briefly, and serve
with a little lemon butter, maybe. That *is* a lot of work, so maybe
I'll try shooting next time.

John

 

[John Larkin]

On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 08:30:11 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com>
wrote:

MM is especially annoying. He's getting rich off the American public
by telling us how stupid we are, thus proving himself correct.

John
--------------
I dare you to prove he is "getting rich". Just because it's all that
YOUR sort wants to do doesn't mean it's what everyone else wants, it
only means that you have a hard time identifying with non-criminals.

You can prove it yourself: just stand in front of a movie theater and
watch the tickets being sold. MM has a $2M apartment in NYC and a
megabuck country home in Maryland or somewhere, and that's just from
the book sales. Look it up.

MM, like Rush, is a greedy and dishonest and rich entertainer. Geez,
do you think he does this out of principle? Delusion indeed.

John

 

[Chuck Harris]

John Larkin wrote:

Not at all. I'm calling you humorless. I hope your family isn't as
grim as you are.

I certainly am not humorless! I am, however, very serious about this
subject. Gun owners have been attacked in all directions by decent
folks like you. All of these unprovoked attacks make us a bit testy.

The silly statistic that I was writing about, as you well know,
is the "43 to 1" BS that you were parroting.


Did I mention the number 43? Hell, I didn't even mention the number 1.
OK, I confess, I did use the word "to".

John, you used the standard phrase that implied that a gun owner was
more likely to kill his own family than to ward off a burgler... not
the exact words, but words to that effect. That concept is one that has
been *heavily* advertised by the HCI folks in their drive to demonize guns
and gun owners. As I pointed out, that concept was spearheaded by a
paper written by Kellerman, an HCI stooge, and published in the New England
Journal of Medicine. The study was very flawed. Among other problems,
it did not include anything about the number of crimes warded off by the
simple showing of a gun.

As an aside: The FBI's UCB is a survey that is filled with information
reported by local police on the various crimes that get reported in the
US. The UCB shows somewhere around 90,000 crimes are stopped, by common
ordinary folks, through the use of guns each year! And those are only
the ones where people took the time to file a report with the police.

Common experience should tell you that if 90,000 people took the time
to report crimes that were averted, many times that number didn't
take the effort....after all, the criminal act was prevented from being
carried out, and in many locations, using a gun to prevent a crime is
a crime in itself.

The problem with rationally discussion guns is that, mostly, you
can't. That says a lot, right there.

I can't think of anything I have written that would lead you to believe this.
In my eyes, I have been very rational with my rebuttle of your statements...
Unless, of course, anyone who disagrees with you is automatically
irrational.

-Chuck

 

[Roger Gt]

"Chuck Harris" <cf-NO-SPAM-harris@erols.com> wrote in message
news:40ed712e$0$1183$61fed72c@news.rcn.com...
: John Larkin wrote:

: > Not at all. I'm calling you humorless. I hope your family
isn't as
: > grim as you are.
:
: I certainly am not humorless! I am, however, very serious about
this
: subject. Gun owners have been attacked in all directions by
decent
: folks like you. All of these unprovoked attacks make us a bit
testy.
: >
: >>The silly statistic that I was writing about, as you well
know,
: >>is the "43 to 1" BS that you were parroting.
: >
: > Did I mention the number 43? Hell, I didn't even mention the
number 1.
: > OK, I confess, I did use the word "to".
:
: John, you used the standard phrase that implied that a gun owner
was
: more likely to kill his own family than to ward off a burgler...
not
: the exact words, but words to that effect. That concept is one
that has
: been *heavily* advertised by the HCI folks in their drive to
demonize guns
: and gun owners. As I pointed out, that concept was spearheaded
by a
: paper written by Kellerman, an HCI stooge, and published in the
New England
: Journal of Medicine. The study was very flawed. Among other
problems,
: it did not include anything about the number of crimes warded
off by the
: simple showing of a gun.
:
: As an aside: The FBI's UCB is a survey that is filled with
information
: reported by local police on the various crimes that get reported
in the
: US. The UCB shows somewhere around 90,000 crimes are stopped,
by common
: ordinary folks, through the use of guns each year! And those
are only
: the ones where people took the time to file a report with the
police.
:
: Common experience should tell you that if 90,000 people took the
time
: to report crimes that were averted, many times that number
didn't
: take the effort....after all, the criminal act was prevented
from being
: carried out, and in many locations, using a gun to prevent a
crime is
: a crime in itself.
:
: >
: > The problem with rationally discussion guns is that, mostly,
you
: > can't. That says a lot, right there.
:
: I can't think of anything I have written that would lead you to
believe this.
: In my eyes, I have been very rational with my rebuttle of your
statements...
: Unless, of course, anyone who disagrees with you is
automatically
: irrational.
: -Chuck


Chuck:
The number 43 is "the meaning of life" according to the book "The
Hitch hikers Guide to the Galaxy" and has been used for emotional
effect in a number of reports and papers to support otherwise
unsupportable positions. BTW: thanks for the link, I added it to
my reference files.

However your in a discussion with someone who is simply incapable
of understanding anything which does not agree with his totally
irrational position. He will simply ignore references, or deride
then as old, biased, or not applying to the topic. BTDT. His
spelling errors go further than a simple typo, and create a
pattern indicating a latent learning disability.

I agree that he should not have a gun, he WOULD likely kill
himself accidentally or on purpose to prove his own twisted point.
Also from what I could glean I strongly suspect that his support
of criminals in trying to protect them from being shot when caught
in the act, or threatening someone in the commission of a crime,
is due to his having been convicted of a felony and being unable
to buy or possess arms. He also claims to be an engineer, but
that might mean he drives trains or earthmovers.

To close, I quit trying to educate Mr. Larkin due to his
demonstratable inability to understand or comprehend the material
presented, or to even consider what was said in the context in
which it was presented.

In short, Good Luck with this effort.

Roger Gt

PS: I have deliberately omitted any analysis which might reflect
negatively on Mr. Larkin. So this expose is not comprehensive.