OT: Unsolicted Email from NG Participants
Rhonda Lea Kirk
1. My news provider doesn't like it,
2. It is a violation of RFC 1036,
3. I have great spam filters, and, most important
4. I love getting email.
Up until now, all of the off-group mail I've ever received has been
welcome.
Unfortunately, tonight, I received a threatening email.
Someone who reads this group has apparently been following the WGA
threads, and he noticed that I had something of a brief, but mildly
heated, exchange with one of the participants. He wrote to let me know
that he has tracked this person to his home, and that he intends to pay
him a surprise visit for the purpose of discussing his newsgroup posts
and (this is really bizarre) having him served with process for the
purpose of "shutting his filthy mouth."
WTF?!
I sent a copy of this email to my "adversary" so that he is aware
someone really has it in for him, and I have also reported the email to
the originating ISP.
But I'm just appalled at this. It's worse than kooky, it's sociopathic.
This is usenet, and to take a usenet dispute into real life is insane.
I'm going to continue to leave my doors open to email because it is what
I have been doing for 17 years, but all you loons out there are on
notice that when you start acting as if mere words are a basis for real
life action, I'm not just going to ignore it, so it's probably best to
avoid involving me in your psychotic plans.
Sincerely,
rl, who really needs to get some sleep now
--
Rhonda Lea Kirk
Insisting on perfect safety is for people
without the balls to live in the real world.
Mary Shafer Iliff
Bother@forgedpostsanonymous.unorg Cymbal Man Freq.
"Rhonda Lea Kirk" <rhon...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4en21tF...@individual.net
> Someone who reads this group has apparently been following the WGA
> threads, and he noticed that I had something of a brief, but mildly
> heated, exchange with one of the participants. He wrote to let me know
> that he has tracked this person to his home, and that he intends to
> pay him a surprise visit for the purpose of discussing his newsgroup
> posts and (this is really bizarre) having him served with process for
> the purpose of "shutting his filthy mouth."
>
> WTF?!
It's the Final Countdown!
pau...@efn.org
Call The Police.
Immediately if not sooner.
Callmark1
Jeff
"Callmark1" <Call...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E5F174F1-1D8A-4F6B...@microsoft.com...
kurttrail
<snipped at both ends>
> it's probably
> best to avoid involving me in your psychotic plans.
Damn! ;-)
--
Peace!
Kurt Kirsch
Self-anointed Moderator
http://microscum.com
"It'll soon shake your Windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin'."
Rhonda Lea Kirk
> Rhonda Lea Kirk wrote:
>
> <snipped at both ends>
>
>> it's probably
>> best to avoid involving me in your psychotic plans.
>
> Damn! ;-)
I will always make an exception for you, Kurt. ;)
Rhonda Lea Kirk
> Rhonda Lea Kirk wrote:
<snipped>
>> Unfortunately, tonight, I received a threatening email.
>>
>> Someone who reads this group has apparently been following the WGA
>> threads, and he noticed that I had something of a brief, but mildly
>> heated, exchange with one of the participants. He wrote to let me
>> know that he has tracked this person to his home, and that he
>> intends to pay him a surprise visit for the purpose of discussing
>> his newsgroup posts and (this is really bizarre) having him served
>> with process for the purpose of "shutting his filthy mouth."
<snipped>
> Call The Police.
>
> Immediately if not sooner.
I'm a rational anarchist, and I don't make decisions for anyone but me.
:)
If the intended target wishes to involve the police, I will support him
fully, but it's his decision to make, not mine.
I have seen him online since I sent the email, so I have every reason to
believe he has received it and is aware of the threat.
Alias
> In article <4en21tF...@individual.net>, rhon...@gmail.com says...
>> Unfortunately, tonight, I received a threatening email.
>>
>> Someone who reads this group has apparently been following the WGA
>> threads, and he noticed that I had something of a brief, but mildly
>> heated, exchange with one of the participants. He wrote to let me know
>> that he has tracked this person to his home, and that he intends to pay
>> him a surprise visit for the purpose of discussing his newsgroup posts
>> and (this is really bizarre) having him served with process for the
>> purpose of "shutting his filthy mouth."
>>
>> WTF?!
>>
>> I sent a copy of this email to my "adversary" so that he is aware
>> someone really has it in for him, and I have also reported the email to
>> the originating ISP.
>>
>> But I'm just appalled at this. It's worse than kooky, it's sociopathic.
>> This is usenet, and to take a usenet dispute into real life is insane.
>
> work with the local LE groups, we see it all to often, mostly involving
> online dating and kids under 18. The good thing is that in America you
> can still own a gun/rifle/shot-gun, so you can protect yourself against
> people trying to get into your home/space.
>
Not to mention having the guns handy in case your kids want to play at
Columbine.
I should have known you were an NRA type.
Alias
Rhonda Lea Kirk
> Leythos wrote:
>> Rhonda Lea Kirk wrote:
>>> But I'm just appalled at this. It's worse than kooky, it's
>>> sociopathic. This is usenet, and to take a usenet dispute into real
>>> life is insane.
>> It's really sad that people like that exist, but they do, and, as we
>> work with the local LE groups, we see it all to often, mostly
>> involving online dating and kids under 18. The good thing is that in
>> America you can still own a gun/rifle/shot-gun, so you can protect
>> yourself against people trying to get into your home/space.
> Not to mention having the guns handy in case your kids want to play at
> Columbine.
>
> I should have known you were an NRA type.
Oh dear. :(
I'm sorry, Alias. Me too.
I grew up with guns in the house, and while I never took up hunting or
target shooting as a sport, I do know how to use firearms, and I
wouldn't hesitate to take out a malevolent intruder. I once lived in a
rather odd neighborhood, and I slept with a .45 in the bedstand drawer.
(I was married then, but my husband worked nights, so I was alone.)
It is true that there are those who should not possess weapons of any
kind, but as annoyed as I am with him, I would not assert that Leythos
should be numbered among them.
rl
P.S. My father never locked up the guns, but my sister and I both knew
better than to touch them without his permission. It was never even an
issue.
Alias
Sorry, but the crime rate in the USA, where almost anyone can own a gun
legally and everyone can own one illegally, is one of the highest in the
world. Ask Cheney's lawyer friend about shotguns.
From: http://bobdylan.com/songs/joey.html
It was true that in his later years he would not carry a gun
"I'm around too many children," he'd say, "they should never know of one."
Alias
Alias
> In article <O6UG35ki...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl>, aka@[notme]
> maskedandanonymous.org says...
>>> It's really sad that people like that exist, but they do, and, as we
>>> work with the local LE groups, we see it all to often, mostly involving
>>> online dating and kids under 18. The good thing is that in America you
>>> can still own a gun/rifle/shot-gun, so you can protect yourself against
>>> people trying to get into your home/space.
>>>
>> Not to mention having the guns handy in case your kids want to play at
>> Columbine.
>>
>> I should have known you were an NRA type.
>
>
> I do teach advanced rifle methods to groups of kids under 18 for a
> national organization dedicated to kids.
>
> In all the years that we had access to guns when I was a kid, I can't
> think of any single incident where one was used to harm anyone else - in
> our area of town. In those days kids were taught what they were, how to
> use them, what they can do, and to actually shoot them, so they have a
> clear understanding they are not toys. At the same time, while I have a
> number of weapons, they are locked in cases, ammo in another locked
> area, realoading powder another area, etc...
>
> In the 10+ years I've known about this training for kids, 3 that I've
> been involved personally, not one kid, past or present, has been
> involved in any accident or shooting of any type. Oh, and the insurance
> for the kids is cheaper than any other club in the organization, all of
> which are non-weapon related.
Tell that to the relatives of the Columbine victims. I am sure they will
understand. Tell that to John Lennon's widow Yoko. Tell that to Abraham
Lincoln's descendants. Tell that to JFK's descendants.
> But I expected that type of statement from someone that left the USA.
Leaving the USA is not a crime. I am very happy here. Why do you have a
problem with that or was that just a cheap "shot" due to your being out
of "ammo" in your arguments?
Alias
Rhonda Lea Kirk
> Rhonda Lea Kirk wrote:
<snipped>
>> P.S. My father never locked up the guns, but my sister and I both
>> knew better than to touch them without his permission. It was never
>> even an issue.
> Sorry, but the crime rate in the USA, where almost anyone can own a
> gun legally and everyone can own one illegally, is one of the highest
> in the world. Ask Cheney's lawyer friend about shotguns.
> From: http://bobdylan.com/songs/joey.html
> It was true that in his later years he would not carry a gun
> "I'm around too many children," he'd say, "they should never know of
> one."
I'm just glad this is a computer ng, and I don't actually have to argue
the issue. :)
rl
jt3
have simple answers. My wife has a very strong distrust of guns, which
inclines her to the view that they should all be banned. People who have
suffered injury from malefactors with guns tend to think that anything that
reduces the chances of this occurrence would be a boon. In my own
experience, I know how easily kids can be stressed to the point of
threatening with guns, even when they know better, and it's not all that
much different with adults.
This depends upon many factors, the degree of 'take' with use-training for
one, but probably more acutely upon the ability of society in general to
impose social standards for resolution of conflict, viz. 'taking matters
into one's own hands.' This attitude has been socially encouraged for many
years now-- 'I did it my way . . ' and many other examples of the same
attitude in different guises. We now have a crew of politicians and
would-be political masters loose on the national scene who feel nothing
wrong in trying to stir up suspicion, hatred, and revulsion for anyone whose
ideas differ from theirs, merely to gain popular advantage.
Personally, though I don't have any guns, I like the idea of being able to
own one, should I want to. Not just because I might want it for protection,
nor for hunting. My Dad hunted when he could, and though I never developed
the interest in it, I have some understanding for those who do. I also
don't like any restriction of personal freedom, but it looks very much like
the price of so many of us living in more intimate contact with one another
(and the net makes it just that much more so) has in the past always led to
the surrender of some of those personal freedoms, or at least to the
restriction of them.
It doesn't look to get any better in the immediate future. *Compromise* on
all sides is the only way we'll all be able to live together. Take a tip
from the middle east.
Joe
"Alias" <aka@[notme]maskedandanonymous.org> wrote in message
news:uvztruli...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
Eric
"Alias" <aka@[notme]maskedandanonymous.org> wrote in message
news:uvztruli...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
I think Leythos is right. How many kids brought guns to school for the
Columbine incident? Where did they get those guns? What did their parents
teach them about guns?
I think if you have a gun in the house, it should probably be locked.
I think if you have a gun and you have kids, the kids have to be taught to
respect it, and should be given the chance to hold it and fire it in the
proper supervised environment.
I think if kids are taught proper respect for weapons and allowed to use
them on targets or for hunting under proper supervision, they are not likely
to use them as toys much less on another human being unless they are
seriously disturbed.
I think if kids are disturbed enough to use weapons as toys or on another
human being, their parents should be somewhat aware and should choose not to
have such weapons anywhere the child might be able to get them.
Back when I grew up, parents had guns in the house and no children ever
dared touch them without proper permission and supervision.
Since then, more families have both parents working full time and often
leaving children alone.
Since then, more safety precautions have been developed for guns and taught
to parents, but many still choose to ignore them.
Since then, more pansies have adopted the idea that if they never let their
child touch their weapon, the child will pretend the weapon doesn't exist.
Since then, more pacifists have adopted the idea that if they don't own a
gun, they won't have to worry about their children getting their hands on
one or any of their family getting shot, while their children's friends and
the criminals are still likely to have guns.
I was in the Army, and it is disturbing but not surprising, that many of our
soldiers fail their marksmanship test.
Alias
This is getting off topic. I have no more to say about it.
Alias
Alias
> In article <uvztruli...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>, aka@[notme]
> they do it with all sorts of weapons. It doesn't matter if the country
> allows gun ownership or not, people still get the best weapon they can
> and use it to kill with.
>
> It's a simple fact that if you Ban guns, criminals will be the only ones
> with Guns, and killing with Guns will not stop. I would rather have my
> guns to defend my family than to be stuck at the wrong end of one when a
> criminal has one, or when some terror group comes after our family and
> friends or when some other group....
>
>>> But I expected that type of statement from someone that left the USA.
>> Leaving the USA is not a crime. I am very happy here. Why do you have a
>> problem with that or was that just a cheap "shot" due to your being out
>> of "ammo" in your arguments?
>
> fling them.
>
Just remember what the Beatles said,
"Happiness is a warm gun. Bang, bang, shoot, shoot. Happiness is a,
YEAH, warm gun, bang, bang, shoot, shoot"
This is really getting off topic. I have no more to say about it.
Alias
Alias
Very true. In order for a gunless, atomic bombless, etc.less world,
people have to learn to live together without blowing the sh!it out of
each other.
This is really getting off topic. I have no more to say about it.
Alias
> "Alias" <aka@[notme]maskedandanonymous.org> wrote in message
Eric
>
> This is getting off topic. I have no more to say about it.
>
> Alias
The thread title is OT (off topic). That's all you have to say about it?
Nice way to admit you're wrong.
Eric
>
> Just remember what the Beatles said,
>
> "Happiness is a warm gun. Bang, bang, shoot, shoot. Happiness is a, YEAH,
> warm gun, bang, bang, shoot, shoot"
>
> This is really getting off topic. I have no more to say about it.
>
> Alias
I never listened to the Beatles. Did they really say that? How ironic.
Lennon sang about happiness with a warm gun and got shot. That Nirvana guy
sang "I don't have a gun..." and shot himself... apparently they were both
insane.
R. McCarty
song in question comes from the "White Album" recorded in 1968.
Whatever Post 1970+ music you listen to or like, it was influenced
or shaped in some way by the Beatles.
"Eric" <som...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:uobA2zmi...@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
RA
Why would someone getting shot make them insane?
Eric
"RA" <none> wrote in message news:u0OOMBni...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
shoot. Happiness is a, YEAH, warm gun, bang, bang, shoot, shoot", I'd call
them insane.
Sure target shooting can be fun, but the real purpose of a gun is to kill.
Killing animals for food or to save them from overpopulation, or killing as
a soldier or in self defense, is a necessary evil. No one should ever be
happy to kill.
If he sang those words to his fans, it's no surprise someone shot him.
ANONYMOUS
Knowing someone's email is not enough to know the person's residential
address unless the ISP is stupid enough to divulge people's addressess
without the person's concent.
I too have hotmail filters but it is virtually impossible to block every
emails because this would also block the emails from perople you want to
talk!
hth
Rhonda Lea Kirk wrote:
>
> I do not munge my email address for four reasons:
>
> 1. My news provider doesn't like it,
> 2. It is a violation of RFC 1036,
> 3. I have great spam filters, and, most important
> 4. I love getting email.
>
> Up until now, all of the off-group mail I've ever received has been
> welcome.
>
> Unfortunately, tonight, I received a threatening email.
>
> Someone who reads this group has apparently been following the WGA
> threads, and he noticed that I had something of a brief, but mildly
> heated, exchange with one of the participants. He wrote to let me know
> that he has tracked this person to his home, and that he intends to pay
> him a surprise visit for the purpose of discussing his newsgroup posts
> and (this is really bizarre) having him served with process for the
> purpose of "shutting his filthy mouth."
>
> WTF?!
>
> I sent a copy of this email to my "adversary" so that he is aware
> someone really has it in for him, and I have also reported the email to
> the originating ISP.
>
> But I'm just appalled at this. It's worse than kooky, it's sociopathic.
> This is usenet, and to take a usenet dispute into real life is insane.
>
> I'm going to continue to leave my doors open to email because it is what
> I have been doing for 17 years, but all you loons out there are on
> notice that when you start acting as if mere words are a basis for real
> life action, I'm not just going to ignore it, so it's probably best to
> avoid involving me in your psychotic plans.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> rl, who really needs to get some sleep now
Callmark1
something entirely different. "... when I hold you ... in my arms ... with
my finger on your trigger ..." or something along those lines. Listen to the
song again sometime-- especially to pronounciation of the word "gun". It's
really rather adult in nature. ;-)
Happy "shooting" LOL
Mark
ANONYMOUS
Leythos wrote:
>
> The good thing is that in America you
> can still own a gun/rifle/shot-gun, so you can protect yourself against
> people trying to get into your home/space.
>
Can somebody tell our Mr. Blair (PM of UK) that we the victims also have
human rights not only the villains! We are not allowed to use more than
a reasonabl force to protect ourselves but I would like to use a
"gun/rifle/shot-gun" to protect my property and family from harm!
No wonder America is more advanced than any other country on this
planet.
Gaoler
Besides, he probably convinced them that happiness is a warm gun.
--
Person who run in front of car get tired.
Person who run behind car get exhausted.
Rhonda Lea Kirk
> "Alias" wrote in message
news:uunMAami...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> This is getting off topic. I have no more to say about it.
>> Alias
> The thread title is OT (off topic).
Yes, and now my OT thread has been hijacked and totally derailed.
>That's all you have to say about
> it? Nice way to admit you're wrong.
Well, if the desire not to further hijack an already OT thread is an
admission that he's wrong, then my similar "admission" must be the same.
And since he and I disagree, our respective "admissions" must cancel
each other's out.
Now what are you going to do?
I've got a great idea. Why don't you just drop the subject. This
discussion doesn't belong in this group, and there are plenty of other
ngs where it is debated day after day. You don't need this thread in
which to do it.
Much appreciated,
rl
NoStop
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general:
Yep, that became patently clear at Columbine High School.
--
The ULTIMATE Windoze Fanboy:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2370205018226686613
View Some Common Linux Desktops ...
http://linclips.crocusplains.com/index.php
NoStop
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general:
> kurttrail wrote:
>> Rhonda Lea Kirk wrote:
>>
>> <snipped at both ends>
>>
>>> it's probably
>>> best to avoid involving me in your psychotic plans.
>>
>> Damn! ;-)
>
> I will always make an exception for you, Kurt. ;)
>
Are you suggesting Kurttrail is your favorite psychotic?
Rhonda Lea Kirk
> On Wednesday 07 June 2006 06:43 am, Rhonda Lea Kirk had this to say in
> microsoft.public.windowsxp.general:
>> kurttrail wrote:
>>> Rhonda Lea Kirk wrote:
>>> <snipped at both ends>
>>>> it's probably
>>>> best to avoid involving me in your psychotic plans.
>>> Damn! ;-)
>> I will always make an exception for you, Kurt. ;)
> Are you suggesting Kurttrail is your favorite psychotic?
<laughing> Indeed he is.
Alias
You don't understand the song. It is an anti gun song. Ever hear of
sarcasm? I guess I'm getting old as there are actually people who have
never heard this song. Here's all the lyrics:
Beatles, The - Happiness Is A Warm Gun Lyrics
(Lennon/McCartney)
She's not a girl who misses much
Do do do do do do do do, oh yeah
She's well acquainted with the touch of the velvet hand
Like a lizard on a window pane
The man in the crowd with the multicoloured mirrors
On his hobnail boots
Lying with his eyes while his hands are busy
Working overtime
A soap impression of his wife which he ate
And donated to the National Trust
Down
I need a fix cos I'm going down
Down to the bits that I left uptown
I need a fix cos I'm going down
Mother Superior jump the gun
Mother Superior jump the gun
Mother Superior jump the gun
Mother Superior jump the gun
Mother Superior jump the gun
Mother Superior jump the gun
Happiness is a warm gun (Happiness bang, bang, shoot, shoot)
Happiness is a warm gun, mama (Happiness bang, bang, shoot,
shoot)
When I hold you in my arms (Oo-oo oh yeah)
And I feel my finger on your trigger (Oo-oo oh yeah)
I know no one can do me no harm (Oo-oo oh yeah)
Because happiness is a warm gun, mama (Happiness bang, bang,
shoot, shoot)
Happiness is a warm gun, yes it is (Happiness bang, bang, shoot,
shoot)
Happiness is a warm, yes it is, gun (Happiness bang, bang,
shoot, shoot)
Well, don't you know happiness is a warm gun, mama? (Happiness
is a warm gun, yeah)
Alias
antioch
Sorry Alias - but you also have misinterpreted that song.
I do not know how old you are, but when this song was first released, in the
mid to late 60's, there was some argument as to whether it should be 'played
on radio' due to its obvious sexual connotations.
Read then again, this time with a 'smutty mind engaged' - see what I mean
:-) :-)
Antioch
P.S.
You get no help engaging the your mind!
Alias
Oh, there's sex too. I'm almost 60. I bought the White Album when it
came out. It uses sex to make the point about how gun fanatics "love"
their guns and how they are penis substitutes.
Alias
RA
Why would he sing those words that you made up in your silly little head?
Are you saying he was insane and deserved to be shot because of words you
wrote nearly 26 years after his death?
kurttrail
> In article <uvztruli...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>, aka@[notme]
> maskedandanonymous.org says...
>> Leythos wrote:
>>> In article <O6UG35ki...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl>, aka@[notme]
>>> maskedandanonymous.org says...
>>>>> It's really sad that people like that exist, but they do, and, as
>>>>> we work with the local LE groups, we see it all to often, mostly
>>>>> involving online dating and kids under 18. The good thing is that
>>>>> in America you can still own a gun/rifle/shot-gun, so you can
>>>>> protect yourself against people trying to get into your
>>>>> home/space.
>>>>>
>>>> Not to mention having the guns handy in case your kids want to
>>>> play at Columbine.
>>>>
>>>> I should have known you were an NRA type.
>>>
>>> LOL, I'm not a NRA member and I don't support Political groups.
>>>
>>> I do teach advanced rifle methods to groups of kids under 18 for a
>>> national organization dedicated to kids.
>>>
>>> In all the years that we had access to guns when I was a kid, I
>>> can't think of any single incident where one was used to harm
>>> anyone else - in our area of town. In those days kids were taught
>>> what they were, how to use them, what they can do, and to actually
>>> shoot them, so they have a clear understanding they are not toys.
>>> At the same time, while I have a number of weapons, they are locked
>>> in cases, ammo in another locked area, realoading powder another
>>> area, etc...
>>>
>>> In the 10+ years I've known about this training for kids, 3 that
>>> I've been involved personally, not one kid, past or present, has
>>> been involved in any accident or shooting of any type. Oh, and the
>>> insurance for the kids is cheaper than any other club in the
>>> organization, all of which are non-weapon related.
>>
>> Tell that to the relatives of the Columbine victims. I am sure they
>> will understand. Tell that to John Lennon's widow Yoko. Tell that to
>> Abraham Lincoln's descendants. Tell that to JFK's descendants.
>
> Drop the sanctimonious crap, people all over the world kill people,
> and they do it with all sorts of weapons. It doesn't matter if the
> country allows gun ownership or not, people still get the best weapon
> they can and use it to kill with.
>
> It's a simple fact that if you Ban guns, criminals will be the only
> ones with Guns, and killing with Guns will not stop. I would rather
> have my guns to defend my family than to be stuck at the wrong end of
> one when a criminal has one, or when some terror group comes after
> our family and friends or when some other group....
Well I believe in the 2nd Amendment, but countries with tight gun
controls or bans, have way less deaths by guns per capita than countries
that don't.
What you call a "simple fact," is merely BS.
That's all I have to say on this OT thread.
--
Peace!
Kurt Kirsch
Self-anointed Moderator
http://microscum.com
"It'll soon shake your Windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin'."
Callmark1
right when this song came out. It was madness!!
R. McCarty
Commission) actually sent out a mandate to Radio stations that the
"White Album" had songs which could not be played. This was due
in part to Charles Manson and the Tate murder. Manson stated that
he though the record gave him instructions. Best I remember, the
banned songs from the LP where "Piggies" and "Helter-Skelter". The
latter was painted on the walls with the victims blood. The "White
Album" wasn't it's formal title but instead was simply "The Beatles".
The original album had a Serial # affixed to the front cover.
Callmark1
Amendment II: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of
a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
infringed."
How best to keep a free state secure? From whence might come a threat to
freedom? A government bent on tyranny would first attempt to disarm the
people. Can't happen here? The framers thought it could happen anywhere at
anytime and so gave the people this certain right.
"Leythos" wrote:
> In article <eB4ycfvi...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl>,
> donte...@anywhereintheknownuniverse.org says...
> > Well I believe in the 2nd Amendment, but countries with tight gun
> > controls or bans, have way less deaths by guns per capita than countries
> > that don't.
> >
> > What you call a "simple fact," is merely BS.
>
> And gun deaths are on the rise in most of those countries, but you left
> that part out.
>
> It's simple, weapon related deaths will always be around, it's just
> easier to kill someone or rob them if you have a weapon, anything that's
> enough of a threat that they do what you want or enough of a weapon to
> kill them easily if you want.
>
> Where the problem starts is when the criminals realize that the majority
> doesn't have any power to defend their self/property, when they EXPECT
> the victim to not be able to defend, and they go after them without much
> if any fear.
>
> If you are a typical robber, you think twice before entering a place
> when the majority are expected to be holding/carrying, but, if you
> expect no-one to be armed, you don't even think twice.
>
> Just look at Japan if you want to see what's happening when citizens are
> not permitted to carry/have guns.
>
> --
>
> spam9...@rrohio.com
> remove 999 in order to email me
>
Alias
came out. It uses sex to make the point about how gun fanatics "love"
Alias
antioch
bit about the Moth Sup jumping on that warm gun!!!!!!!!!!!
Antioch
"Callmark1" <Call...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6CCF774D-2AC0-4B52...@microsoft.com...
antioch
Bye ;-)
Chris May
took quill in hand and carefully composed...
| I do not munge my email address for four reasons:
|
| 1. My news provider doesn't like it,
| 2. It is a violation of RFC 1036,
| 3. I have great spam filters, and, most important
| 4. I love getting email.
|
| Up until now, all of the off-group mail I've ever received has been
| welcome.
|
| Unfortunately, tonight, I received a threatening email.
|
| Someone who reads this group has apparently been following the WGA
| threads, and he noticed that I had something of a brief, but mildly
| heated, exchange with one of the participants. He wrote to let me know
| that he has tracked this person to his home, and that he intends to pay
| him a surprise visit for the purpose of discussing his newsgroup posts
| and (this is really bizarre) having him served with process for the
| purpose of "shutting his filthy mouth."
If you're in the US, you should refer this matter to the FBI. They have a
department for dealing with such things.
ChrisM
Steve N.
Oh Lord! Now _that_ is scarey! I have lived and thrived on this planet
for over 54 years and have never, _never_, _ever_ needed a gun or weapon
of any kind to ensure my well-being.
We all live on this little blue ball, spinning around a star and we're
all still here.
When viewed from space there are no borders. How wonderful is that?
You do the geography.
Steve N.
kurttrail
> In article <OxqzqNoj...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl>, m...@here.now
> says...
>> ANONYMOUS wrote:
>>>
>>> Leythos wrote:
>>>
>>>> The good thing is that in America you
>>>> can still own a gun/rifle/shot-gun, so you can protect yourself
>>>> against people trying to get into your home/space.
>>>>
>>> Can somebody tell our Mr. Blair (PM of UK) that we the victims also
>>> have human rights not only the villains! We are not allowed to use
>>> more than a reasonabl force to protect ourselves but I would like
>>> to use a "gun/rifle/shot-gun" to protect my property and family
>>> from harm!
>>>
>>> No wonder America is more advanced than any other country on this
>>> planet.
>>
>> Oh Lord! Now _that_ is scarey! I have lived and thrived on this
>> planet for over 54 years and have never, _never_, _ever_ needed a
>> gun or weapon of any kind to ensure my well-being.
>
> You didn't need a gun/weapon because others were willing to make the
> sacrifice for you.
LOL! I don't need anyone to make any sacrifice for me, with or without
a gun.
Steve N.
> In article <OxqzqNoj...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl>, m...@here.now says...
>
>>
>>>Leythos wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>The good thing is that in America you
>>>>can still own a gun/rifle/shot-gun, so you can protect yourself against
>>>>people trying to get into your home/space.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Can somebody tell our Mr. Blair (PM of UK) that we the victims also have
>>>human rights not only the villains! We are not allowed to use more than
>>>a reasonabl force to protect ourselves but I would like to use a
>>>"gun/rifle/shot-gun" to protect my property and family from harm!
>>>
>>>No wonder America is more advanced than any other country on this
>>>planet.
>>
>>Oh Lord! Now _that_ is scarey! I have lived and thrived on this planet
>>for over 54 years and have never, _never_, _ever_ needed a gun or weapon
>>of any kind to ensure my well-being.
>
>
> sacrifice for you.
>
Steven Mark Nielsen, Petty Officer 3rd Class, Aviation Electronics
Technician, USN, Serial Number ###-##-####, Attack Squadron VA-195, USS
Kitty Hawk, Viet Nam veteran. Does the mining of Haiphong Harbor ring a
bell? I helped end the war, I volunteered and I didn't have to kill
anyone to do it.
Now, what were you saying?
Steve N.
Rhonda Lea Kirk
> Leythos wrote:
>> You didn't need a gun/weapon because others were willing to make the
>> sacrifice for you.
> Steven Mark Nielsen, Petty Officer 3rd Class, Aviation Electronics
> Technician, USN, Serial Number ###-##-####, Attack Squadron VA-195,
> USS Kitty Hawk, Viet Nam veteran. Does the mining of Haiphong Harbor
> ring a bell? I helped end the war, I volunteered and I didn't have to
> kill anyone to do it.
>
> Now, what were you saying?
>
> Steve N.
In a perfect world, borders would be open, and everyone would be free to
live as they choose short of infringing on the right of others to live
as they choose.
Rational anarchy at its finest: "my right to swing stops at the end of
your nose."
I believe in it, and if I could see a way--short of shooting them
all--to stop the narcissistic, control-freak b@stards who are determined
to make others live their way, I would speak out for it relentlessly.
In the meantime, however, I grew up with the idea that there are
responsible uses for firearms, although I don't see a whole lot of
responsible people with firearms today. Still, I don't see what guns in
the home has to do with guns in war. But if we're going to mix the two
up, then I will say that regardless of how our government misuses our
young men, the reason most of them fight and die is to protect what they
hold dear.
Most recently, one of my tribe has died in pursuit of that goal and
another has lost his leg. I do not believe our government is on a very
steady course at the moment, but I do wish to distinguish between those
who fight and die for an ideal, and the businessmen at home who send
them to fight for oil and power and whatever else will line their
pockets. I don't believe that I am being protected by the sacrifices
made by my friends, but I do believe that my protection was their goal
and intent.
The only thing this has to do with your post, Steve, is that I thank you
for your service. For the rest of it, I'm just responding generally to
the general mishegoss in this thread. I no longer read Leythos' posts
unless someone else responds to him, but someone always does, and it
drives me crazy the way he can muddle two very separate issues (in this
case, guns in war and guns at home).
rl
P.S. My father was a Marine who was disabled in the Korean conflict.
Eric
"Rhonda Lea Kirk" <rhon...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4f7u5lF...@individual.net...
The point you missed is that guns in war are guns at home. Without an army,
you are the army. I guess you never learned about the history of the USA.
When the country was first founded, every man had a gun in his home and used
it to protect the land from foreign invaders. You don't realize that need
for guns because we have secured our land from foreign invaders. We reached
the point where we can assign a few hundred thousand men to fight against
any who might try to forcibly take or destroy our property while a few
hundred million live here peacefully. If any try to march into our land,
the army is there with guns. If any try to break into your home, police are
there with guns. If you don't own a gun, you're simply saying you trust
your guns to those other people. You hope the people with guns assigned to
protect you don't get out of control and turn against you. The same goes
for Steve. Being in the military, you are assigned a gun. You may never
have to use it, but you support those who do. Those who are not out there
physically supporting the people who protect us with the guns are either
financially supporting them or living off the charity of those who do.
In an ideal world, no one needs guns. Our world is far from ideal. You
either own a gun to hunt and protect your family, or trust someone else to
do so.
Steve N.
<snipped>
> The same goes
> for Steve. Being in the military, you are assigned a gun.
Nope. I was never assigned a weapon. The only time I ever touched one in
the Navy was in boot camp for one session of target practice.
Steve N.
Rhonda Lea Kirk
> The point you missed is that guns in war are guns at home. Without
> an army, you are the army. I guess you never learned about the
> history of the USA. When the country was first founded, every man had
> a gun in his home and used it to protect the land from foreign
> invaders. You don't realize that need for guns because we have
> secured our land from foreign invaders. We reached the point where
> we can assign a few hundred thousand men to fight against any who
> might try to forcibly take or destroy our property while a few
> hundred million live here peacefully. If any try to march into our
> land, the army is there with guns. If any try to break into your
> home, police are there with guns. If you don't own a gun, you're
> simply saying you trust your guns to those other people. You hope
> the people with guns assigned to protect you don't get out of control
> and turn against you. The same goes for Steve. Being in the
> military, you are assigned a gun. You may never have to use it, but
> you support those who do. Those who are not out there physically
> supporting the people who protect us with the guns are either
> financially supporting them or living off the charity of those who
> do.
> In an ideal world, no one needs guns. Our world is far from ideal.
> You either own a gun to hunt and protect your family, or trust
> someone else to do so.
You can save the sarcasm for someone else.
When I was growing up (I was born in '58), kids who grew up in the
country understood firearms. The only trouble we ever had with guns is
when the folks from the city showed up during hunting season and
demonstrated their inability to distinguish Flossie the cow or Tommy the
cat from Bambi. "Bag limit" meant nothing to them. Shooting from the
windows of a moving car was par for the course. But it was also a
limited problem.
Now the smartasses outnumber the sharpshooters, and I, for one, do not
believe you can make a valid comparison between 2006 and 1776. We do
have an army, so we need not be the army.
I trust myself with firearms, but when I consider some of the people I
know, I am quite happy with the idea that they are anti, because I would
not want them to own even a cap gun.
OTOH, a lot of the NRA types I run into are totally whacked-out cow
killers, and I wish someone would take their firearms away.
When you can figure out how to put firearms only in the hands of
responsible people and keep them out of the hands of criminals and
morons and guys who use them as a substitute for the balls they lack,
please let the rest of us know.
Because if the problem isn't solved soon, even those few who *are*
responsible will not be bearing arms.
rl
Eric
boarding your ship?
I believe everyone is given a weapon in the Army. Regardless, the point
stands. You either own and use a gun or support and trust someone else to.
"Steve N." <Ste...@nunya.biz.nes> wrote in message
news:e4firCwj...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
Eric
> Eric wrote:
>
>> The point you missed is that guns in war are guns at home. Without
>> an army, you are the army. I guess you never learned about the
>> history of the USA. When the country was first founded, every man had
>> a gun in his home and used it to protect the land from foreign
>> invaders. You don't realize that need for guns because we have
>> secured our land from foreign invaders. We reached the point where
>> we can assign a few hundred thousand men to fight against any who
>> might try to forcibly take or destroy our property while a few
>> hundred million live here peacefully. If any try to march into our
>> land, the army is there with guns. If any try to break into your
>> home, police are there with guns. If you don't own a gun, you're
>> simply saying you trust your guns to those other people. You hope
>> the people with guns assigned to protect you don't get out of control
>> and turn against you. The same goes for Steve. Being in the
>> military, you are assigned a gun. You may never have to use it, but
>> you support those who do. Those who are not out there physically
>> supporting the people who protect us with the guns are either
>> financially supporting them or living off the charity of those who
>> do.
>> In an ideal world, no one needs guns. Our world is far from ideal. You
>> either own a gun to hunt and protect your family, or trust
>> someone else to do so.
>
> You can save the sarcasm for someone else.
>
> When I was growing up (I was born in '58), kids who grew up in the country
> understood firearms. The only trouble we ever had with guns is when the
> folks from the city showed up during hunting season and demonstrated their
> inability to distinguish Flossie the cow or Tommy the cat from Bambi. "Bag
> limit" meant nothing to them. Shooting from the windows of a moving car
> was par for the course. But it was also a limited problem.
True, but increased idiocy is more than a firearm issue. There are also
issues with poaching, people hunting animals by hitting them with a
vehicle...
>
> Now the smartasses outnumber the sharpshooters, and I, for one, do not
> believe you can make a valid comparison between 2006 and 1776. We do have
> an army, so we need not be the army.
So far, we do not need to be the army. There is always the potential. If
China declared conventional war against us, we would need far more soldiers
than we have...
The second amendment was written with the intent of every home having a gun,
and every gun owner being responsible, so that we may have the power to
overturn our government if they get out of hand, like I hear China's
government is busy bullying it's people lately.
>
> I trust myself with firearms, but when I consider some of the people I
> know, I am quite happy with the idea that they are anti, because I would
> not want them to own even a cap gun.
>
> OTOH, a lot of the NRA types I run into are totally whacked-out cow
> killers, and I wish someone would take their firearms away.
>
> When you can figure out how to put firearms only in the hands of
> responsible people and keep them out of the hands of criminals and morons
> and guys who use them as a substitute for the balls they lack, please let
> the rest of us know.
>
> Because if the problem isn't solved soon, even those few who *are*
> responsible will not be bearing arms.
>
> rl
> --
> Rhonda Lea Kirk
>
> Insisting on perfect safety is for people
> without the balls to live in the real world.
> Mary Shafer Iliff
>
That is the price of our freedom. We give our people the freedom to be
idiots. Many people own guns who should not. We cannot create legislation
that would prevent legal citizens from owning firearms. We can only create
legislation to help them be responsible, like the hunter safety test we have
in some states. Irresponsible people also have the freedom to drive cars,
and do other things which have the potential to harm innocent people.
The bigger problem is that irresponsible people are becoming parents and we
have no legislation to control that.
Steve N.
> Maybe it's different in the Navy. They weren't worried about anyone
> boarding your ship?
> I believe everyone is given a weapon in the Army. Regardless, the point
> stands. You either own and use a gun or support and trust someone else to.
You and BSthos missed my point entirely. Nevermind.
Steve N.
Rhonda Lea Kirk
> "Rhonda Lea Kirk" wrote:
>> You can save the sarcasm for someone else.
> What sarcasm?
The part about me not learning US history.
<snipped>
>> Now the smartasses outnumber the sharpshooters, and I, for one, do
>> not believe you can make a valid comparison between 2006 and 1776.
>> We do have an army, so we need not be the army.
> So far, we do not need to be the army. There is always the
> potential.
When I was growing up, there was always the potential that the USSR and
the US were going to blow each other and the rest of the world to
smithereens, and as a result, an entire generation grew up believing
that there would be no tomorrow...and acting accordingly.
Much of what is wrong with our society can be traced to this one fact.
> If China declared conventional war against us, we would
> need far more soldiers than we have...
> The second amendment was written with the intent of every home having
> a gun, and every gun owner being responsible, so that we may have the
> power to overturn our government if they get out of hand, like I hear
> China's government is busy bullying it's people lately.
You've got a lot of "ifs" in there.
A more productive solution is working to prevent war, conquest and
carnage.
<snipped>
>> When you can figure out how to put firearms only in the hands of
>> responsible people and keep them out of the hands of criminals and
>> morons and guys who use them as a substitute for the balls they
>> lack, please let the rest of us know.
>>
>> Because if the problem isn't solved soon, even those few who *are*
>> responsible will not be bearing arms.
> That is the price of our freedom. We give our people the freedom to
> be idiots. Many people own guns who should not. We cannot create
> legislation that would prevent legal citizens from owning firearms.
Yes. We give people the freedom to be idiots. And people die as a
result. My cousin was killed a few years ago by his ex-wife's boyfriend.
It was a sidewalk altercation that occurred when he arrived to pick up
his child for visitation, and the bozo boyfriend had a gun in the car.
The question is, why did the bozo boyfriend have a gun in the car?
> We can only create legislation to help them be responsible, like the
> hunter safety test we have in some states.
I forgot to mention, didn't I, that I taught a hunter safety course one
year. Not firearms, but bow. I find that bow hunters are, generally, a
better class of weapons owners, but a hunter safety test is not a
panacea. Even a total bozo can pass an eight-week course.
> Irresponsible people also
> have the freedom to drive cars, and do other things which have the
> potential to harm innocent people.
And we have laws to take away the licenses of those who drive
irresponsibly.
> The bigger problem is that irresponsible people are becoming parents
> and we have no legislation to control that.
This is as old as time. And children never turn out quite the way you
think they will, because nature almost always trumps nurture.
The big problem is that it's not a black and white issue, but most
people insist on seeing it in only those colors.
Can we get back to the discussion of WGA? Even that's less obnoxious
than this. I cannot stand the entrenched positions on either side,
because there's a lot to be said for both sides, and a compromise is in
order. Unfortunately, that's not going to happen, and discussing it is
just the blowing about of a lot of hot air.
jt3
Rhonda Lea Kirk. Don't think anyone has said it any more persuasively.
Joe
"Rhonda Lea Kirk" <rhon...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4f7u5lF...@individual.net...
Steve N.
> Just for the record, amen to all that you said below, both Steve N. and
> Rhonda Lea Kirk. Don't think anyone has said it any more persuasively.
>
> Joe
Thanks Joe.
Steve N.
Steve N.
Eric wrote:
> Maybe it's different in the Navy.
Very different. We fought with our brains and talents.
> They weren't worried about anyone
> boarding your ship?
Have you ever seen an aircraft carrier or know anything about the
technology onboard a carier or its compliment of aircraft and other
ships? Even back in the 70s they'd know someone was coming from over 500
miles away. Your imaginary boarding party would never get there. And you
know how the USN would handle it? No weapons fired. Just a couple of
nice and friendly fighter planes and/or a destroyer quietly escorting
them away.
> I believe everyone is given a weapon in the Army.
I wasn't in the Army, I thought I made that clear. I made my choice,
which apparently eludes you. I did not wish to kill anyone and I did not
wish to be killed by anyone. I felt the conviction to _do_ something
about it and I acted on it. I am extremely proud to have helped the Viet
Nam war come to an end. You should be greatful, maybe I saved your daddy.
> Regardless, the point
> stands. You either own and use a gun or support and trust someone else to.
No, I trust my brain, my mind, my convictions and my experiences.
If someone invades my home I know how to deal with it and I don't need
weapons for that, so stop trying to scare me into buying into your
twisted agenda.
The government _steals_ quite a bit of my earnings against my will in
order to support very many things I don't agree with. Why? Because I
obey the law. Once again, taxation without representation. Boston Tea
Party comes to mind.
Polititions are thieves and liars. I work, I pay taxes and I vote. I do
my best to keep my family healthy, no thanks to you or the government,
might I add. I voluntarily put in three of the best years of my life to
help protect my country and bring a stupid war that was killing of most
of my high school buddies (and maybe your daddy) to an end. What the
hell have you done for me?
Now be a good boy, go play with your cap-guns over at Lamethos' house
and leave the rest of us alone so we can get back to helping people with
computer problems.
Steve N.
Bob I
Steve N.
> Humm, I think you forgot about the Marines you had aboard.
No I didn't. They weren't worth mentioning, they're just for show. The
only think I ever saw the jarheads do was gaurd the nuclear weapons we
didn't have onboard while they were being taken below decks everytime we
pulled into a foriegn port that forbade their presence. The rest of the
time they just stood around looking good in their fancy uniforms while
the rest of us worked.
Steve N.
Steve N.
> In article <ey0cw58j...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>,
> Ste...@nunya.biz.nes says...
>
>>Bob I wrote:
>>
>>>Humm, I think you forgot about the Marines you had aboard.
>>
>>No I didn't. They weren't worth mentioning, they're just for show. The
>>only think I ever saw the jarheads do was gaurd the nuclear weapons we
>>didn't have onboard while they were being taken below decks everytime we
>>pulled into a foriegn port that forbade their presence. The rest of the
>>time they just stood around looking good in their fancy uniforms while
>>the rest of us worked.
>
>
> there to keep the silver (nukes) safe. Calling a Red-Diamons Alert was
> always fun - just watching them jump out of their hole and run down the
> passageways, knocking anyone in the way out of the way :)
>
> Between the Jets, Radar, Sea Sparrows, and the escort ships, very little
> could get near the Carrier - the only real threat was the hey-joes and
> locals that worked on the boat while we were in port.
>
You evade points right and left a divert issues when presented with
facts, as usual. You insulted me beyond belief and I won't forget it.
"You didn't need a gun/weapon because others were willing to make the
sacrifice for you."
I showed you different and you owe me an apology or at least an
admission of being wrong. But you obviously hold yourself in too high
esteem to stoop to being honest.
Steve N.
Rhonda Lea Kirk
> You evade points right and left a divert issues when presented with
> facts, as usual. You insulted me beyond belief and I won't forget it.
>
> "You didn't need a gun/weapon because others were willing to make the
> sacrifice for you."
>
> I showed you different and you owe me an apology or at least an
> admission of being wrong. But you obviously hold yourself in too high
> esteem to stoop to being honest.
Dear Steve,
When first I ran afoul of him, I thought he was just...not a troll
exactly, but something of a contrary b@stard.
Then I realized he is one of those people who misinterprets the product
of his emotions as logical thought. He free-associates his answers,
unable to parse the internal logic, because it's all perfectly sensible
to him as is. Worse, he expects everyone uses the same filters he does,
so he thinks it should be sensible to the rest of us. Once I understood
that, I put some effort into trying to understand what he meant, not
what he said, and it made communication a lot easier.
In a crisis, I believe he is the sort of guy you would want at your
back, because he can be counted on to do what needs to be done. Just
don't try to discuss the underlying philosophy with him afterward, or
you're likely to end up beating him with a stick.
Unfortunately, as you have seen, when he is presented with certain kinds
of facts, he does not know how to order his response, so he resorts to
personal attacks and insults, based on his misinterpretation of those
facts. In this case, you put forth a position that, to him, meant you
could not have seen military service, so he treated you like the
civilian he thinks you must be.
I have seen him apologize, once, in another group, but I can't remember
why, so I don't know if an apology in this case fits into his world
view.
One can only hope.
rl
Steve N.
Thanks Rhonda. I appreciate your reply.
I'm sorry, but my impression is that Leythos is a pompous,
self-righteous, assuming punk. I am surprised he ever has apologized to
anyone for anything and I wouldn't trust him to kiss my ass without
biting it.
Steve N.
kurttrail
Yep. I have to agree with you on this one, except I would have used
"prick" in place of "punk."
kurttrail
> In article <eb1sBfnk...@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl>, m...@here.now
> says...
>> I'm sorry, but my impression is that Leythos is a pompous,
>> self-righteous, assuming punk. I am surprised he ever has apologized
>> to anyone for anything and I wouldn't trust him to kiss my ass
>> without biting it.
>
> And other than suckering me into another reply to a troll,
The only troll in this thread is you, Lamegirl.
> you've
> still not shown where I was wrong.
Oh, yes he has.
> Unlike you, I ALWAYS ADMIT when I'm wrong, but you've not come close
> to proving anything, except that you're not mature enough to hold a
> discussion.
So when are you gonna admit that you were wrong to think that Iraq had
massive stockpiles of WMDs in 2003? :-p
Steve N.
> In article <eb1sBfnk...@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl>, m...@here.now says...
>
>>self-righteous, assuming punk. I am surprised he ever has apologized to
>>anyone for anything and I wouldn't trust him to kiss my ass without
>>biting it.
>
>
I just love the way some people toss around the name "troll" around here
whenever someone disagrees with them or proves them wrong. Too funny. Do
you feel like a big man now for calling me a troll?
> you've still
> not shown where I was wrong.
The obvious escapes you. I can't believe how dense you are.
>
> Unlike you, I ALWAYS ADMIT when I'm wrong, but you've not come close to
> proving anything, except that you're not mature enough to hold a
> discussion.
>
Check my posting history here. I have always admitted when I am wrong
and I welcome correction because I enjoy learning.
Steve N.
Steve N.
Thanks for the correction, Kurt.
:)
Steve N.
Rhonda Lea Kirk
> Leythos wrote:
>> In article <eb1sBfnk...@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl>, m...@here.now
>> says...
>>> I'm sorry, but my impression is that Leythos is a pompous,
>>> self-righteous, assuming punk. I am surprised he ever has
>>> apologized to anyone for anything and I wouldn't trust him to kiss
>>> my ass without biting it.
>>
>>
>> And other than suckering me into another reply to a troll,
>
> I just love the way some people toss around the name "troll" around
> here whenever someone disagrees with them or proves them wrong. Too
> funny. Do you feel like a big man now for calling me a troll?
I have no doubt that he sincerely believes you are a troll.
>> you've still
>> not shown where I was wrong.
>
> The obvious escapes you. I can't believe how dense you are.
I wouldn't call him "dense," although it's certainly appears to be
exactly that.
In fact, he's one of those guys who, upon coming in possession of facts
that do not fit his theory, discards those facts as being irrelevant.
After all, whatever his gut has told him must be the correct conclusion.
>> Unlike you, I ALWAYS ADMIT when I'm wrong, but you've not come close
>> to proving anything, except that you're not mature enough to hold a
>> discussion.
> Check my posting history here. I have always admitted when I am wrong
> and I welcome correction because I enjoy learning.
Steve, everyone but Leythos knows you're not a troll, and, moreover,
that you are, in fact, a very helpful and knowledgeable poster here, not
to mention that you are obviously mentally-healthy. But now that he's
made up his mind, it wouldn't matter if you saved the world one-handed,
because his thought-process is totally inelastic. I was really hoping
he'd see reason before it got this far.
kurttrail
Reason and Leythos are mutually exclusive.
Steve N.
> Steve N. wrote:
>
>>Leythos wrote:
>>
>>>In article <eb1sBfnk...@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl>, m...@here.now
>>>says...
>>>
>>>>I'm sorry, but my impression is that Leythos is a pompous,
>>>>self-righteous, assuming punk. I am surprised he ever has
>>>>apologized to anyone for anything and I wouldn't trust him to kiss
>>>>my ass without biting it.
>>>
>>>
>>>And other than suckering me into another reply to a troll,
>>
>>I just love the way some people toss around the name "troll" around
>>here whenever someone disagrees with them or proves them wrong. Too
>>funny. Do you feel like a big man now for calling me a troll?
>
>
> I have no doubt that he sincerely believes you are a troll.
No he doesn't, he's just lashing out because I proved him wrong about me
and exposed his assinine assumptions. We've communicated a fair amount
here in the past. He knows I'm no troll. However I tend to usually stay
out of most discussions with him because I know it's fruitless, but this
one was too insulting for me to let slide.
>
>
>>>you've still
>>>not shown where I was wrong.
>>
>>The obvious escapes you. I can't believe how dense you are.
>
>
> I wouldn't call him "dense," although it's certainly appears to be
> exactly that.
I'd call him a lot of other things but I figured it be better to remain
as civil as the situation allows.
>
> In fact, he's one of those guys who, upon coming in possession of facts
> that do not fit his theory, discards those facts as being irrelevant.
Yep. You hit the nail squarely on the head.
>
> After all, whatever his gut has told him must be the correct conclusion.
>
Heh. I think you're right.
>
>>>Unlike you, I ALWAYS ADMIT when I'm wrong, but you've not come close
>>>to proving anything, except that you're not mature enough to hold a
>>>discussion.
>
>
>>Check my posting history here. I have always admitted when I am wrong
>>and I welcome correction because I enjoy learning.
>
>
> Steve, everyone but Leythos knows you're not a troll, and, moreover,
> that you are, in fact, a very helpful and knowledgeable poster here, not
> to mention that you are obviously mentally-healthy.
I thank you for the nice words, Rhonda. I think you're pretty darn good,
too, for the very same reasons.
> But now that he's
> made up his mind, it wouldn't matter if you saved the world one-handed,
> because his thought-process is totally inelastic. I was really hoping
> he'd see reason before it got this far.
>
> rl
Yeah, well I guess that's Leythos for you. I don't recall him ever
seeing reason when confronted.
For his sake I hope he doesn't insult someone's honor in real life as he
has mine here; he'd likely wind up in the ER. I doubt he'd learn from it
though, so what would be the point? It'd be a waste of energy to kick
his ass, even though he deserves it.
Steve N.
Steve N.
> Leythos wrote:
>
>
>>In article <eb1sBfnk...@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl>, m...@here.now
>>says...
>>
>>>I'm sorry, but my impression is that Leythos is a pompous,
>>>self-righteous, assuming punk. I am surprised he ever has apologized
>>>to anyone for anything and I wouldn't trust him to kiss my ass
>>>without biting it.
>>
>>And other than suckering me into another reply to a troll,
>
>
> The only troll in this thread is you, Lamegirl.
>
>
>>you've
>>still not shown where I was wrong.
>
>
> Oh, yes he has.
>
Damn right I did. The pompous chicken-sh!t will never admit it, though.
>
>>Unlike you, I ALWAYS ADMIT when I'm wrong, but you've not come close
>>to proving anything, except that you're not mature enough to hold a
>>discussion.
>
>
> So when are you gonna admit that you were wrong to think that Iraq had
> massive stockpiles of WMDs in 2003? :-p
>
LOL! Never, that's when. Leythos lives on his own fantasy island. He
wouldn't know reality if it bitch-slapped him all the way back to the
primordial sludge-pond we all came from.
Steve N.
Sharon Franks
you weird I was inundated with emails from people agreed with me and from
some who didn't. I wanted to stay out of some flame war but the more posts I
read from you the more I am convinced that you have a problem. I was given
this link by someone in an email and I thought why/how could someone do such
a thing. I am beginning to see why. You want facts here is a fact
Fact: http://waiwillo.notlong.com
--
Sharon Franks
MCC group
Microsoft Certified Solutions Developer (MCSD)
Microsoft Certified Trainer (MCT).
"Leythos" <vo...@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:Ugmlg.74894$YI5....@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
> In article <4flb5tF...@individual.net>, rhon...@gmail.com says...
>> In fact, he's one of those guys who, upon coming in possession of facts
>> that do not fit his theory, discards those facts as being irrelevant.
>>
>> After all, whatever his gut has told him must be the correct conclusion.
>
> I have NEVER worked on "Gut" feelings, and in fact several tests in fact
> fault that area, as I'm overly clinical and very fact driven. I would
> say that I've looked at the information posted, don't apply FUD to it
> like most of you, and also have not seen where my conclusions are even
> close to being wrong.
>
> If you don't like my conclusion then you might want to reconsider your
> conclusion, as I always reassess the issue each time a fact is
> presented.
>
> What appears to be the problem here is a result of unvalidated so-called
> factual information, and while I disagree, because nothing has proven my
> information wrong, I don't get all bent out of shape like you and the
> troll does. I didn't take the OT thread more OT, I just replied to him
> already taking it down another path.
>
> If you post facts that I can validate, and I agree with them, I will say
> I made a mistake - that's the way I work.
>
> I never dismiss anything that proves me wrong, but I don't accept FUD as
> facts either. Give the real facts and I'll say you're right, give me BS
> and I'll call you on it.
>
> --
>
> spam9...@rrohio.com
> remove 999 in order to email me
Steve N.
> In article <#NPxxtvk...@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl>, m...@here.now says...
>
>>but this
>>one was too insulting for me to let slide.
>
>
> you consider trolling to be an insult, then you should be insulted as
> you've been trolling for several posts in this thread.
>
You are a liar, and not a very good one, either. Give it up, you're no
good at it.
Steve N.
Rhonda Lea Kirk
> You know I wanted to stay out of this thread because the first time I
> called you weird I was inundated with emails from people agreed with
> me and from some who didn't. I wanted to stay out of some flame war
> but the more posts I read from you the more I am convinced that you
> have a problem. I was given this link by someone in an email and I
> thought why/how could someone do such a thing. I am beginning to see
> why. You want facts here is a fact
> Fact: http://waiwillo.notlong.com
> <sig restored>
> Sharon Franks
> MCC group
> Microsoft Certified Solutions Developer (MCSD)
> Microsoft Certified Trainer (MCT).
Good goin', pcbutts, you rotten, stinking piece of offal.
All the nymshifting and every other psycho thing you do makes you look
to be...exactly what you are: psycho.
Aren't you banned from this group, anyway, you dirtbag?
Gah!
rl
--
Rhonda Lea Kirk
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity.
Robert A. Heinlein
doobie
> You know I wanted to stay out of this thread because the first time I called
> you weird I was inundated with emails from people agreed with me and from
> some who didn't. I wanted to stay out of some flame war but the more posts I
> read from you the more I am convinced that you have a problem. I was given
> this link by someone in an email and I thought why/how could someone do such
> a thing. I am beginning to see why. You want facts here is a fact
>
> Fact: http://waiwillo.notlong.com
>
>
Amen, Sharon...Amen!
Rhonda Lea Kirk
> I've seen the way you support butts and the way you defend his
> actions, but you can't defend someone that is unethical, can't defend
> someone that pirated others works/code, at least not if you want to be
> considered credible - and I guess you don't.
<incredulous> You've seen the way [s/he/it] supports Butts?
That *is* Butts, Leythos.
I reported the post to pacbell (SBC) this morning, for all the good it's
going to do.
Steve N.
> In article <#ZcFgT1k...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl>, m...@here.now says...
> worthless as what you've been posting, but if you can't prove me wrong,
> and then go on the BS posts, that's not helping. If you can provide
> factual information I will say I was wrong, but FUD doesn't, and never
> has, counted as facts. While you can claim the world is flat, most
> people know it's not.
>
<sigh>
One more time...
You claimed I let others make the sacrifice of defending me and my
country for me. I proved you WRONG; I am a war veteran.
Those ARE the FACTS! Everyone else but you sees that.
Steve N.
Rhonda Lea Kirk
> Leythos wrote:
>> I stayed out of the banter with you and RLK for a while, as it was as
>> worthless as what you've been posting, but if you can't prove me
>> wrong, and then go on the BS posts, that's not helping. If you can
>> provide factual information I will say I was wrong, but FUD doesn't,
>> and never has, counted as facts. While you can claim the world is
>> flat, most people know it's not.
> <sigh>
> One more time...
>
> You claimed I let others make the sacrifice of defending me and my
> country for me. I proved you WRONG; I am a war veteran.
He doesn't care. You didn't use a gun; ergo, you are a de facto
civilian.
> Those ARE the FACTS! Everyone else but you sees that.
It's hopeless.
And now that we have Butts dogging this thread, he's going to be in full
attack mode, so the minimal reasoning skills he does have will go
straight down the tubes.
I'd try pointing him here:
or here:
http://www.austhink.org/critical/
...but I think it would do no good.
And now I have to go do something constructive, because I owe Mr.
Gardner a reply.
Sharon Franks
Are you a troll also? why are there so many.
--
Sharon Franks
MCC group
Microsoft Certified Solutions Developer (MCSD)
Microsoft Certified Trainer (MCT).
"Rhonda Lea Kirk" <rhon...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4fnmijF...@individual.net...
Rhonda Lea Kirk
> You reported me because you think I'm someone else? A lot good that
> will do. Are you a troll also? why are there so many.
I reported you for posting that webpage and because you are a
slime-sucking bottom-feeder for having posted it. The fact that you are
pcbutts in drag is secondary.
rl
Sharon Franks
think I am him. You say he is banned yet you say I am him. I have not seen
any posts from him and there is nothing in my kill file. What I do know is
that he, apparently, must be better than all of you trolls because you all
hate him and all I hear is excuses nothing but excuses. I did a Google
search on him and it looks to me that he still posts and it goes way back 5
plus years. If he is so bad like you, leythos, and now David has said then
why does he still post and still have that gross website?. I have read post
after post that he has been reported but nothing has happened. I even read
posts where he has been sued, he must have won because he is still around.
Common sense tells me that he is the president or someone with extreme power
and money or he has simply done nothing wrong, that he is just a victim off
trolls who fought back and won. My initial assumptions of Leythos was right.
I understand now why he has that website and I had no idea who David was
from his site until I read his post from today. You all (trolls) need to
grow up.
--
Sharon Franks
MCC group
Microsoft Certified Solutions Developer (MCSD)
Microsoft Certified Trainer (MCT).
"Rhonda Lea Kirk" <rhon...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4497...@newsgate.x-privat.org...
Steve N.
> In article <OF8Az06k...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl>,
> Ste...@nunya.biz.nes says...
> search back through the thread - but, if you would like to quote it, I
> will formally apologize for making that type of blanket statement; in
> fact, if I made a blanket statement like that after learning you served,
> then I formally apologize to you.
>
> At the same time, I would like to say this: While many people have
> served, still serve, their views/opinions change over time - some of
> those that served turn on the country, and we've seen several that have
> denounced the USA after being honorable service members. Kerry is a fine
> example of a traitor and one that currently gives comfort to the enemy -
> as such, if you make statements that dishonor your prior actions (as
> Kerry does all the time) then your prior actions/service don't really
> matter any more.
>
> So, since I can't recall what was actually said, I'll give you the
> benefit of doubt and say this: I formally apologize to you for comments
> about your service and merit of such.
>
> I served also, still have contacts, have family active duty, my oldest
> son just passed his physical in in the DEP, and am very American in
> spirit and heart. I was awarded several honors and left with a honorable
> discharge after my EAOS. I believe that all us Citizens should serve at
> least a 2 year hitch in one branch or another. But, now I'm rambling. I
> have apologized and it's in type for anyone to read.
>
Ok, Leythos, I accept your apology. Thank you.
Steve N.
Steve N.
> I don't know this pcbut you all keep talking about and I don't know why you
> think I am him. You say he is banned yet you say I am him. I have not seen
> any posts from him and there is nothing in my kill file. What I do know is
> that he, apparently, must be better than all of you trolls because you all
> hate him and all I hear is excuses nothing but excuses. I did a Google
> search on him and it looks to me that he still posts and it goes way back 5
> plus years. If he is so bad like you, leythos, and now David has said then
> why does he still post and still have that gross website?. I have read post
> after post that he has been reported but nothing has happened. I even read
> posts where he has been sued, he must have won because he is still around.
> Common sense tells me that he is the president or someone with extreme power
> and money or he has simply done nothing wrong, that he is just a victim off
> trolls who fought back and won. My initial assumptions of Leythos was right.
> I understand now why he has that website and I had no idea who David was
> from his site until I read his post from today. You all (trolls) need to
> grow up.
>
As Rhonda said, you posted the link to that terrible site and that's
what she reported you for. The rest is speculation and assumption. `Nuff
said.
Steve N.
Sharon Franks
Posting a link violates nothing. Everybody but trolls know that. All that
means is that she is trolling. She has stated that she was banned once, it
probably was for trolling.
--
Sharon Franks
MCC group
Microsoft Certified Solutions Developer (MCSD)
Microsoft Certified Trainer (MCT).
"Steve N." <m...@here.now> wrote in message
news:OWNPwt$kGHA...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...