Anti-gun lobby displaying it's ignorance again.
John-Melb
-------------------------------------------------------
Recently, the National Coalition for Gun Control’s spokesperson
Samantha Lee was on television, once again espousing her objection to
the shooting sports. Among other things, she argued that civilians do
not need self-loading handguns and that sporting shooters only require
‘one shot’ to participate in shooting competitions.
Previous experience has shown us that anti-gun groups don’t always
properly research their subject matter or check facts before they
begin their frantic tirades against private firearm ownership and the
shooting sports. Indeed, these groups are often just plain wrong when
it comes to commenting on the many and varied activities involved in
our chosen sport. These groups apparently also believe that the
Olympic or Commonwealth Games are the only arenas for sports shooting.
Recognising this, I would like to use this month’s editorial to set
the record straight about what many of the SSAA’s shooting
competitions actually involve.
The SSAA has more than a dozen shooting competitions with many
categories and matches in each one and many thousands of Australian
shooters participating in them each month. These competitions and
their related matches require the use of many different types of
firearms, from shotguns, pistols and revolvers to rimfire, centrefire,
air and black powder rifles.In Action Match, an international
competition in which the SSAA regularly competes and does extremely
well in, the competitors use both revolvers and self-loading pistols
to engage the targets. In the Falling Plates section of Action Match,
48 shots are fired at metal plate targets in timed events.
In competitions such as Single Action, competitors engage metallic
targets with revolvers and lever-action rifles. These targets are
placed at various distances and the competitor’s score is calculated
by the number of targets hit and the amount of time taken to engage
them.
The SSAA also competes in Target Pistol, which requires 10 shots to be
fired in as little as 40-second and 20-second strings of fire during
the course.
Furthermore, despite what Ms Lee says, even the various Commonwealth
Games shooting competitions require shooters to fire multiple shots.
Their 25m Pistol competition includes a Precision event and a Rapid
Fire event, with each consisting of six stages of five shots for a
total of 30 shots.
The SSAA rifle and shotgunning competitions also require multiple
shots. Field Rifle consists of 42 shots taken at various targets and
distances in timed events, while Lever Action is designed around fast,
accurate shots with all types of lever-action rifles utilised. In most
field shotgun competitions such as 5-Stand, a competitor requires a
shotgun that can deliver a quick second shot to obtain a score if the
target is missed on the first attempt.
Clearly, there are many competitions at club, state, national and
international levels that involve shooters taking multiple shots at
targets. We suspect that the National Coalition for Gun Control’s
misinformed statements about the ‘needs’ of competitive shooters and
what the shooting sports apparently involve is just another ploy by
the anti-gun groups to confuse the non-shooting public and that their
real agenda is, in fact, to ban all firearms, one at a time, handgun
to longarm, multiple-shot to single-shot, until there are no legal
firearms left. Of course, this does nothing to curb illegal firearms,
which may still be used by unlicensed shooters in criminal activities.
The only way to counteract the misinformation of the anti-gun brigade
is through public education and hands-on experience. Perhaps we should
send the National Coalition for Gun Control a copy of our new SSAA’s
Comprehensive Guide to Shooting & Hunting in Australia, which details
all of the SSAA’s shooting competitions? We doubt they would bother to
read it though!
edi...@netpath.net
> Recently, the National Coalition for Gun Control’s spokesperson
> Samantha Lee was on television, once again espousing her objection to
> the shooting sports. Among other things, she argued that civilians do
> not need self-loading handguns and that sporting shooters only require
> ‘one shot’ to participate in shooting competitions.
Wonder why the networks are going broke in America? Because ever-
fewer people are willing to watch what amounts to a giant press
release for leftist politicians and leftist advocacy groups -
especially when they know from either personal experience or the
experience of relatives that the "facts" the "mainstream" media says
are bullshit.
http://www.Internet-Gun-Show.com - your source for hard-to-find stuff!
David L. Jones
> From the Sporting Shooter's Association Website
How is this of relevance to the aus.electronics group?
Dave.
--
---------------------------------------------
Check out my Electronics Engineering Video Blog & Podcast:
http://www.alternatezone.com/eevblog/
Dennis
"David L. Jones" <alt...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4%Z3m.10469$8P7....@newsfe21.iad...
I agree - it's about as relevant as John-Melb <mcnamara_j...@hotmail.com>
who has started a few similarly relevant threads of late.
John - Melb
> "David L. Jones" <altz...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:4%Z3m.10469$8P7....@newsfe21.iad...
>
> > John-Melb wrote:
> >> From the Sporting Shooter's Association Website
>
> > How is this of relevance to the aus.electronics group?
>
> > Dave.
> > --
> > ---------------------------------------------
> > Check out my Electronics Engineering Video Blog & Podcast:
> >http://www.alternatezone.com/eevblog/
>
> I agree - it's about as relevant as John-Melb <mcnamara_j...@hotmail.com>
> who has started a few similarly relevant threads of late.
It's about as relevant as Trevor Tosspot's rants about guns and gun
owners on aus.electronics.
Trevor often does that, get's spanked for telling porkies on a gun
related groups, so he scuttles off to totally unrelated groups and
posts rants about guns and gun owners, last time it was
rec.audio.opinion and aus.hi-fi, this time it's aus.electronics.
Don't like it, take it up with Trevor, he chooses the field, I simply
play by his rules.
Or, are you implying that posts by anti-gun zealots like Trevor,
ranting about guns and gun owners is relevant to aus.electronics, but
a differing opinion is not?
David L. Jones
> On Jul 5, 7:23 pm, "Dennis" <den...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> "David L. Jones" <altz...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> messagenews:4%Z3m.10469$8P7....@newsfe21.iad...
>>
>>> John-Melb wrote:
>>>> From the Sporting Shooter's Association Website
>>
>>> How is this of relevance to the aus.electronics group?
>>
>>> Dave.
>>> --
>>> ---------------------------------------------
>>> Check out my Electronics Engineering Video Blog & Podcast:
>>> http://www.alternatezone.com/eevblog/
>>
>> I agree - it's about as relevant as John-Melb
>> <mcnamara_j...@hotmail.com>
>> who has started a few similarly relevant threads of late.
>
> It's about as relevant as Trevor Tosspot's rants about guns and gun
> owners on aus.electronics.
Oh, that recent OT thread that you started and also cross posted to
aus.electronics?
> Trevor often does that, get's spanked for telling porkies on a gun
> related groups, so he scuttles off to totally unrelated groups and
> posts rants about guns and gun owners, last time it was
> rec.audio.opinion and aus.hi-fi, this time it's aus.electronics.
He was simply reply to the thread you started when you cross-posted it here
for no good reason.
Trevor is one of the longest standing posters to aus.electronics, and I
can't say I ever remember him talking about guns on this group, except when
you started and cross posted these threads for no good reason.
> Don't like it, take it up with Trevor, he chooses the field, I simply
> play by his rules.
How about you make up your own rule, remove aus.electronics from your
cross-post list.
Please.
Thanks.
John - Melb
> John - Melb wrote:
> > On Jul 5, 7:23 pm, "Dennis" <den...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >> "David L. Jones" <altz...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >> messagenews:4%Z3m.10469$8P7....@newsfe21.iad...
>
> >>> John-Melb wrote:
> >>>> From the Sporting Shooter's Association Website
>
> >>> How is this of relevance to the aus.electronics group?
>
> >>> Dave.
> >>> --
> >>> ---------------------------------------------
> >>> Check out my Electronics Engineering Video Blog & Podcast:
> >>>http://www.alternatezone.com/eevblog/
>
> >> I agree - it's about as relevant as John-Melb
> >> <mcnamara_j...@hotmail.com>
> >> who has started a few similarly relevant threads of late.
>
> > It's about as relevant as Trevor Tosspot's rants about guns and gun
> > owners on aus.electronics.
>
> Oh, that recent OT thread that you started and also cross posted to
> aus.electronics?
No, look again.
>
> > Trevor often does that, get's spanked for telling porkies on a gun
> > related groups, so he scuttles off to totally unrelated groups and
> > posts rants about guns and gun owners, last time it was
> > rec.audio.opinion and aus.hi-fi, this time it's aus.electronics.
>
> He was simply reply to the thread you started when you cross-posted it here
> for no good reason.
> Trevor is one of the longest standing posters to aus.electronics, and I
> can't say I ever remember him talking about guns on this group, except when
> you started and cross posted these threads for no good reason.
No, responding to rants by anti-gun zealots, is in your opinion "no
good reason", well I'm glad we've worked that out.
>
> > Don't like it, take it up with Trevor, he chooses the field, I simply
> > play by his rules.
>
> How about you make up your own rule, remove aus.electronics from your
> cross-post list.
> Please.
What, and continue to let Trevor post his rants without challenge, not
bloody likely.
>
> Thanks.
> Dave.
> --
> ---------------------------------------------
> Check out my Electronics Engineering Video Blog & Podcast:http://www.alternatezone.com/eevblog/- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
John - Melb
> On Jul 5, 10:39 pm, "David L. Jones" <altz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Oh, that recent OT thread that you started and also cross posted to
> > aus.electronics?
>
> No, look again.
Try here
-------------------------------------------
On Jun 16, 3:21 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au>
wrote:
> **Despite the fact that VASTLY more Americans carry guns around the streets,
> legally, the US remains the most dangerous, deadly Western, developed
> Democratic nations. Carrying guns achieves, at best, nothing. At worst, it
> leads to more violence and death. In fact, the US homicide rate is presently
> 3 times the Australian one.
------------------------------------------------------------
This rant pre-dates any post I've ever made on aus.electronics. Whilst
these comments seem fairly inoffensive, they must be placed in
context.
Trevor Tosspot took the opportunity to post rants about gun ownership
on a thread which, up to that time had not mentioned firearms at all.
He's previously done that, after being (spanked for telling porkies)
on aus.hi-fi and rec.audio.opinion as well. He believes he can post
his rants and no-one will know enough about the subject matter to
challenge his assertions.
As I said, he chose the field.
I notice you snipped my question, I'll ask again
Dennis
The vast majority in aus.electronics don't really care. Lets not trash our
working ng's by crossposting irrelevant topics.
cheers.
John - Melb
"longest standing poster" you might want remind him of the claim he
posted on aus.electronics, that US gun dealers are using gunshows to
sell firearms illegally to criminals without carrying out background
checks. You might want to point out to him I asked him at the time to
cite some evidence to support this assertion. You might want to point
out that I'm still waiting for that evidence..................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Jun 18, 12:54 pm, "Trevor Wilson"
<tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
> **Yes. Easily. Across the US, each year, there are hundreds of 'gun shows'.
> At these 'gun shows' dealers, posing as private citizens sell thousands of
> guns to criminals. They can do so, because there are virtually zero
> restrictions on the sale of 'second hand' guns. Even if that gun has only
> been 'second hand' for a couple of minutes and has never been fired. Here in
> Australia (and pretty much the rest of the developed world) ALL gun sales
> must be recorded and tracked. Even secondary sales. Such an action ensures
> that fewer guns end up in the hands of criminals.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
John - Melb
You're implying Trevor's remarks were relevant, or that his previous
posts on rec.audio.opinion or aus.hi-fi were relevant, but somehow
mine are not?
regn.pickford
"Dennis" <den...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:4a50ad82$0$2832$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
> The vast majority in aus.electronics don't really care. Lets not trash our
> working ng's by crossposting irrelevant topics.
>
You're on record as having asked **Trevor not to post OT ?
<Ob on topic component>
When is a fuse, not a fuse?
Scout
When it's amp rating is too high.
David L. Jones
> On Jul 5, 10:39 pm, "David L. Jones" <altz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> John - Melb wrote:
>>> On Jul 5, 7:23 pm, "Dennis" <den...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>> "David L. Jones" <altz...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>> messagenews:4%Z3m.10469$8P7....@newsfe21.iad...
>>
>>>>> John-Melb wrote:
>>>>>> From the Sporting Shooter's Association Website
>>
>>>>> How is this of relevance to the aus.electronics group?
>>
>>>>> Dave.
>>>>> --
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------
>>>>> Check out my Electronics Engineering Video Blog & Podcast:
>>>>> http://www.alternatezone.com/eevblog/
>>
>>>> I agree - it's about as relevant as John-Melb
>>>> <mcnamara_j...@hotmail.com>
>>>> who has started a few similarly relevant threads of late.
>>
>>> It's about as relevant as Trevor Tosspot's rants about guns and gun
>>> owners on aus.electronics.
>>
>> Oh, that recent OT thread that you started and also cross posted to
>> aus.electronics?
>
> No, look again.
No, you look again.
I see no threads on the topic started by Trevor in aus.electronics.
But I do see two topics *started by you* on the subject crossed posted to
aus.electronics.
>>> Don't like it, take it up with Trevor, he chooses the field, I
>>> simply play by his rules.
>>
>> How about you make up your own rule, remove aus.electronics from your
>> cross-post list.
>> Please.
>
> What, and continue to let Trevor post his rants without challenge, not
> bloody likely.
It ain't rocket science, if you don't start cross posted threads to
aus.electronics then we won't see anything about guns on this group. Trevor
certainly isn't starting them.
Please stop.
David L. Jones
> David, while you're discussing his posting practices with your
> "longest standing poster" you might want remind him of the claim he
> posted on aus.electronics, that US gun dealers are using gunshows to
> sell firearms illegally to criminals without carrying out background
> checks. You might want to point out to him I asked him at the time to
> cite some evidence to support this assertion. You might want to point
> out that I'm still waiting for that evidence..................
Why would I want to do that. It's your silly fight with Trevor, you go have
it out on the gun groups where it belongs. Leave it off aus.electronics,
please.
KR
on things from AGW, government power, & shredding basic constitutional
rights, when these types get into government and/or any position of
power, or even have the right to vote, over time, they ultimately
create the need for guns in order to reclaim the rights that the trevs
of this world destroy. A lot of lives and property are destroyed, and
generations impoverished along the way.
People in the past could be excused for "allowing" horrible things to
happen, there would have been closed media, lack of balanced knowlege,
and tons of propaganda.
The difference now is that with the internet and the wide range of
sources available, its getting to the point where there is no excuse
for allowing evil to flourish, and if it does, the average citizen now
is responsible, as they had access to the facts.
However I agree, the thread shouldnt be on an Electronics group.
Spartan613
--
"No matter how cynical I get, it never seems to be enough."
"John-Melb" <mcnama...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5723dd2c-72a5-4c62...@i4g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
From the Sporting Shooter's Association Website
-------------------------------------------------------
Recently, the National Coalition for Gun Control�s spokesperson
Samantha Lee was on television, once again espousing her objection to
the shooting sports. Among other things, she argued that civilians do
not need self-loading handguns and that sporting shooters only require
�one shot� to participate in shooting competitions.
Previous experience has shown us that anti-gun groups don�t always
properly research their subject matter or check facts before they
begin their frantic tirades against private firearm ownership and the
shooting sports. Indeed, these groups are often just plain wrong when
it comes to commenting on the many and varied activities involved in
our chosen sport. These groups apparently also believe that the
Olympic or Commonwealth Games are the only arenas for sports shooting.
Recognising this, I would like to use this month�s editorial to set
the record straight about what many of the SSAA�s shooting
competitions actually involve.
The SSAA has more than a dozen shooting competitions with many
categories and matches in each one and many thousands of Australian
shooters participating in them each month. These competitions and
their related matches require the use of many different types of
firearms, from shotguns, pistols and revolvers to rimfire, centrefire,
air and black powder rifles.In Action Match, an international
competition in which the SSAA regularly competes and does extremely
well in, the competitors use both revolvers and self-loading pistols
to engage the targets. In the Falling Plates section of Action Match,
48 shots are fired at metal plate targets in timed events.
In competitions such as Single Action, competitors engage metallic
targets with revolvers and lever-action rifles. These targets are
placed at various distances and the competitor�s score is calculated
by the number of targets hit and the amount of time taken to engage
them.
The SSAA also competes in Target Pistol, which requires 10 shots to be
fired in as little as 40-second and 20-second strings of fire during
the course.
Furthermore, despite what Ms Lee says, even the various Commonwealth
Games shooting competitions require shooters to fire multiple shots.
Their 25m Pistol competition includes a Precision event and a Rapid
Fire event, with each consisting of six stages of five shots for a
total of 30 shots.
The SSAA rifle and shotgunning competitions also require multiple
shots. Field Rifle consists of 42 shots taken at various targets and
distances in timed events, while Lever Action is designed around fast,
accurate shots with all types of lever-action rifles utilised. In most
field shotgun competitions such as 5-Stand, a competitor requires a
shotgun that can deliver a quick second shot to obtain a score if the
target is missed on the first attempt.
Clearly, there are many competitions at club, state, national and
international levels that involve shooters taking multiple shots at
targets. We suspect that the National Coalition for Gun Control�s
misinformed statements about the �needs� of competitive shooters and
what the shooting sports apparently involve is just another ploy by
the anti-gun groups to confuse the non-shooting public and that their
real agenda is, in fact, to ban all firearms, one at a time, handgun
to longarm, multiple-shot to single-shot, until there are no legal
firearms left. Of course, this does nothing to curb illegal firearms,
which may still be used by unlicensed shooters in criminal activities.
The only way to counteract the misinformation of the anti-gun brigade
is through public education and hands-on experience. Perhaps we should
send the National Coalition for Gun Control a copy of our new SSAA�s
Comprehensive Guide to Shooting & Hunting in Australia, which details
all of the SSAA�s shooting competitions? We doubt they would bother to
read it though!
Thomas
Ever heard of freedom of speech?
Freedom of speech is not a licence to allow the distribution of
malicous, demonstrably untrue claims about any group in society. It's
designed to ensure that differing opinions are heard.
Wanker Wilson posted his assertion that American gun dealers were
using gunshows to ignore the requirements of GCA-68 and sell guns to
criminals on aus.electronics.
You people said nothing.
Wanker Wilson posted his claims about DGU's in America on
aus.electronics.
You people said nothing.
But when something is posted pointing out that zealots like Wanker
Wilson often get their facts wrong, you lot start whingeing about
cross-posting.
So, you're not prepared to challenge Wanker Wilson about his off-topic
posts, but quite prepared to challenge John?
John Crook, President of Gun Control Australiaonce described the
debate over firearms ownership in this country as "The Australian Gun
War". I've got news for you lot, your decision to take sides means
you're no longer innocent bystanders, but active combatants.
But then, you probably already knew that.
Dennis
"Thomas" <recalcitra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8796c627-b00f-4712...@r15g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
> You people truely disgust me.
>
> Ever heard of freedom of speech?
>
> Freedom of speech is not a licence to allow the distribution of
> malicous, demonstrably untrue claims about any group in society. It's
> designed to ensure that differing opinions are heard.
>
> Wanker Wilson posted his assertion that American gun dealers were
> using gunshows to ignore the requirements of GCA-68 and sell guns to
> criminals on aus.electronics.
>
> You people said nothing.
>
> Wanker Wilson posted his claims about DGU's in America on
> aus.electronics.
>
> You people said nothing.
>
> But when something is posted pointing out that zealots like Wanker
> Wilson often get their facts wrong, you lot start whingeing about
> cross-posting.
>
> So, you're not prepared to challenge Wanker Wilson about his off-topic
> posts, but quite prepared to challenge John?
>
Ummm - which bit about initiating the thread did you not understand you
numpty?
David L. Jones
> You people truely disgust me.
>
> Ever heard of freedom of speech?
>
> Freedom of speech is not a licence to allow the distribution of
> malicous, demonstrably untrue claims about any group in society. It's
> designed to ensure that differing opinions are heard.
>
> Wanker Wilson posted his assertion that American gun dealers were
> using gunshows to ignore the requirements of GCA-68 and sell guns to
> criminals on aus.electronics.
>
> You people said nothing.
>
> Wanker Wilson posted his claims about DGU's in America on
> aus.electronics.
>
> You people said nothing.
That's because he did not start the thread, he was clearly not aiming at
aus.electronics and was simply keeping the cross-posted thread going as
originally posted.
> But when something is posted pointing out that zealots like Wanker
> Wilson often get their facts wrong, you lot start whingeing about
> cross-posting.
>
> So, you're not prepared to challenge Wanker Wilson about his off-topic
> posts, but quite prepared to challenge John?
Correct, but you've missed the entire point, massively.
Most of us here on aus.electronics do not care about guns or chat about guns
and have never had to put up with talk about guns on this group.
It is only until "John-Melb" posted *two* *new* threads about guns to
aus.electronics that I and others started to complain.
I had no real problems with the OT "Stun gun" thread turning into gun talk,
I simply ignored it, threads drift off-topic, that happens.
I was willing to let John-Melb's first deliberate aus.electronics OT gun
post fly, but when he posted yet another new thread and started showing a
trend of including aus.electronics as a cross post in *new* threads, that's
when I complained - and rightly so.
Remove aus.electronics from your cross-post list, please, we don't want this
on our group.
Regards.
Dave.
--
================================================
Michael A. Terrell
David, you can't reason with these kinds of people. Set up a proxy
server and drop anything crossposted to any gun group, or politivcal
group. Then you'll never see anything, no atter who posts it, or how
often they change their nym.
--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense!
Thomas
used other electronics/music groups to launch tirades about guns and
gun owners, you didn't have to "put up" with gun talk on your group
until Wilson used your group as a means to make an unsubstantiated
attack against American gun dealers. As John has posted before, he
"chose the field". You seem to think Wilson making his unsubstantiated
remarks about licenced gun dealers on "your" group is OK, but a
differing opinion is not. That's your opinion and your entitled to it,
don't expect me or others to like or respect it.
Tell me, if someone was making unsubstantiated remarks, designed to
display your way of life, or a group within society which you
considered yourself a member, in a poor light on another group,
particularly when this person had a history of doing so in the past,
would you remain silent?
> I was willing to let John-Melb's first deliberate aus.electronics OT gun
> post fly, but when he posted yet another new thread and started showing a
> trend of including aus.electronics as a cross post in *new* threads, that's
> when I complained - and rightly so.
Your complaints were unreasonable because you didn't complain about
Wilson posting on the same subject.
Look at the claims Wilson made about gun dealers, but replace the
words "gun dealer" with the word "nigger" or "Jew", get the picture?
Would a differing opinion still be "off topic"? Many gun owners are
sick and tired of the blaming and vilification they receive at the
hands of zealot's like Wilson, you seem to think his vilification on
"your" group is OK, but a differing opinion is not.
David L. Jones
> No, Dave, I haven't missed the point at all. Wilson has previously
> used other electronics/music groups to launch tirades about guns and
> gun owners, you didn't have to "put up" with gun talk on your group
> until Wilson used your group as a means to make an unsubstantiated
> attack against American gun dealers. As John has posted before, he
> "chose the field".
Please show me one post Trevor has *started* in aus.electronics about guns.
Like I said, I can't ever recall that he has. I might be wrong about that,
but I doubt it.
>> I was willing to let John-Melb's first deliberate aus.electronics OT
>> gun post fly, but when he posted yet another new thread and started
>> showing a trend of including aus.electronics as a cross post in
>> *new* threads, that's when I complained - and rightly so.
>
> Your complaints were unreasonable because you didn't complain about
> Wilson posting on the same subject.
But Trevor didn't *start* a thread in aus.electronics about guns, that's my
point!
"John-Melb" started *two* of them, that's why I complained.
What part of that complaint is unreasonable?
If I came into aus.politics.guns (or whatever is your main group) and
started threads about electronics or something else OT, I'd likely be
politely told to leave. Don't expect anything different here.
> Look at the claims Wilson made about gun dealers, but replace the
> words "gun dealer" with the word "nigger" or "Jew", get the picture?
> Would a differing opinion still be "off topic"? Many gun owners are
> sick and tired of the blaming and vilification they receive at the
> hands of zealot's like Wilson, you seem to think his vilification on
> "your" group is OK, but a differing opinion is not.
You don't get it, I don't care about that stuff.
All I care about is people starting OT topics like that in aus.electronics.
"John-Melb" started two of them, that's why I spoke up after I let the first
one slide.
Regards
David L. Jones
> David, you can't reason with these kinds of people. Set up a proxy
> server and drop anything crossposted to any gun group, or politivcal
> group. Then you'll never see anything, no atter who posts it, or how
> often they change their nym.
I know, just trying to knock it on the head now for the benefit of all on
aus.electronics.
Thomas
> You don't get it, I don't care about that stuff.
> All I care about is people starting OT topics like that in aus.electronics.
> "John-Melb" started two of them, that's why I spoke up after I let the first
> one slide.
>
> Regards
> Dave.
You don't get it, I do, I don't care if he started the thread or used
a thread already started, he used aus.electronics to launch an attack
at gun ownership, as he done previously through rec.audio.opinion and
aus.hi-fi.
You've made it clear, in your opinion and on "your" group, Wilson's
rants are OK but John's replies are not.
I can't think of anything else you've got to say that I want to hear.
Thomas
Then talk to Wilson
David L. Jones
> On Jul 6, 4:28 pm, "David L. Jones" <altz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> You don't get it, I don't care about that stuff.
>> All I care about is people starting OT topics like that in
>> aus.electronics. "John-Melb" started two of them, that's why I spoke
>> up after I let the first one slide.
>>
>> Regards
>> Dave.
>
> You don't get it, I do, I don't care if he started the thread or used
> a thread already started, he used aus.electronics to launch an attack
> at gun ownership, as he done previously through rec.audio.opinion and
> aus.hi-fi.
There is a big difference between starting a thread and simply responding to
a cross-posted one that's already started and goes a bit OT. Shame you can't
see that.
> You've made it clear, in your opinion and on "your" group, Wilson's
> rants are OK but John's replies are not.
If Trevor *starts* threads like this on on aus.electronics then I'll give
him the same serve, you can bet on that. He hasn't, so I have nothing
against Trevor at all. In fact he's a very long standing member of this
group, one of the highest (on-topic) posters.
> I can't think of anything else you've got to say that I want to hear.
That's ok, stay away from aus.electronics and you won't hear from me. That's
the beauty of these seperate specific usenet groups which John-Melb sort to
disrupt. This is what I'm defending, shame you don't think the same way.
Regards
Dave.
--
---------------------------------------------
Thomas
I can see well what you're defending.
While Trevor's posting his rants about guns and gun owners, you can
bet I won't be too far away.
keithr
How old are you? You sound like my kids did when they were 9 "She
started it" "He was looking at me".
Trevor has posted useful stuff here, he is welcome (as long as he keeps
his gun opinions where they belong. You and your mate john haven't so
you're not (unless you have something relevant to electronic)
John - Melb
Thank you Tom, you've put it far better than I could have.
John - Melb
> How old are you? You sound like my kids did when they were 9 "She
> started it" "He was looking at me".
45 last birthday, Yep, he started it, and I'll be around until it's
finished.
>
> Trevor has posted useful stuff here, he is welcome (as long as he keeps
> his gun opinions where they belong. You and your mate john haven't so
> you're not (unless you have something relevant to electronic)-
Bingo! I don't care what Trevor has to say about electronics, "as long
as he keeps his gun opinions where they belong", unfortunately he
hasn't, he's used aus.electronics to launch another tirade about guns
and gun owners. Other posters seem to think that's OK, I don't. Other
posters seem to think I and others shouldn't have right of reply on
the same forum, I do.
Trevor launched his rant, my replies have demonstrated
a) Trevor has a history of telling porkies on firearms related
matters, when he gets spanked for doing so on gun related groups, he
scurries away to other groups, hoping that no-one there will know
enough about the subject to challenge him; and;
b) anti-gun zealots like Trevor often have no idea what they're
talking about on the subject of firearms, and simply rely on community
fear and ignorance.
Like Tommy, while Trevor continues to use off topic groups to
diseminate misleading information about guns and gun owners among the
wider community, I wont be far away.
Like it or lump it, either way, I'm past caring
keithr
> On Jul 6, 7:24 pm, keithr <ke...@nowhere.com.au> wrote:
>
>> How old are you? You sound like my kids did when they were 9 "She
>> started it" "He was looking at me".
>
> 45 last birthday, Yep, he started it, and I'll be around until it's
> finished.
>
>> Trevor has posted useful stuff here, he is welcome (as long as he keeps
>> his gun opinions where they belong. You and your mate john haven't so
>> you're not (unless you have something relevant to electronic)-
>
> Bingo! I don't care what Trevor has to say about electronics, "as long
> as he keeps his gun opinions where they belong", unfortunately he
> hasn't, he's used aus.electronics to launch another tirade about guns
> and gun owners. Other posters seem to think that's OK, I don't. Other
> posters seem to think I and others shouldn't have right of reply on
> the same forum, I do.
What makes you think that you have a "Right of reply" in a totally
disinterested forum? If you were walking past some-one's house an heard
them expressing opinions contrary to yours, do you think that you would
have the right to go in and give your "Right to reply"?
> Trevor launched his rant, my replies have demonstrated
> a) Trevor has a history of telling porkies on firearms related
> matters, when he gets spanked for doing so on gun related groups, he
> scurries away to other groups, hoping that no-one there will know
> enough about the subject to challenge him; and;
> b) anti-gun zealots like Trevor often have no idea what they're
> talking about on the subject of firearms, and simply rely on community
> fear and ignorance.
>
> Like Tommy, while Trevor continues to use off topic groups to
> diseminate misleading information about guns and gun owners among the
> wider community, I wont be far away.
>
> Like it or lump it, either way, I'm past caring
So why are you telling us this then? Why not just go back to
politics.guns or wherever you came from and tell people who care?
keithr
Well thats quite an admission.
John - Melb
I'm glad you're enjoying it.
John - Melb
> John - Melb wrote:
> > On Jul 6, 7:24 pm, keithr <ke...@nowhere.com.au> wrote:
>
> >> How old are you? You sound like my kids did when they were 9 "She
> >> started it" "He was looking at me".
>
> > 45 last birthday, Yep, he started it, and I'll be around until it's
> > finished.
>
> >> Trevor has posted useful stuff here, he is welcome (as long as he keeps
> >> his gun opinions where they belong. You and your mate john haven't so
> >> you're not (unless you have something relevant to electronic)-
>
> > Bingo! I don't care what Trevor has to say about electronics, "as long
> > as he keeps his gun opinions where they belong", unfortunately he
> > hasn't, he's used aus.electronics to launch another tirade about guns
> > and gun owners. Other posters seem to think that's OK, I don't. Other
> > posters seem to think I and others shouldn't have right of reply on
> > the same forum, I do.
>
> What makes you think that you have a "Right of reply" in a totally
> disinterested forum? If you were walking past some-one's house an heard
> them expressing opinions contrary to yours, do you think that you would
> have the right to go in and give your "Right to reply"?
We're not in someone's house, the comments have been "broadcasted" if
you like, on a public forum.
I understand that some of you believe Trevor has the right to post
whatever lies he likes aboiut guns and gun owners on aus.electronics,
like his claims about gun dealers using gunshows to avoid complying
with GCA 68 and selling guns to criminals, and any contrary opinion
has no right to be heard here, I don't agree with you.
This forum has been used to diseminate misleading assertions about
guns and gun owners.
>
> > Trevor launched his rant, my replies have demonstrated
> > a) Trevor has a history of telling porkies on firearms related
> > matters, when he gets spanked for doing so on gun related groups, he
> > scurries away to other groups, hoping that no-one there will know
> > enough about the subject to challenge him; and;
> > b) anti-gun zealots like Trevor often have no idea what they're
> > talking about on the subject of firearms, and simply rely on community
> > fear and ignorance.
>
> > Like Tommy, while Trevor continues to use off topic groups to
> > diseminate misleading information about guns and gun owners among the
> > wider community, I wont be far away.
>
> > Like it or lump it, either way, I'm past caring
>
> So why are you telling us this then? Why not just go back to
> politics.guns or wherever you came from and tell people who care?
Because Trevors spreading his lies HERE!-
John - Melb
> He was simply reply to the thread you started when you cross-posted it here
> for no good reason.
> Trevor is one of the longest standing posters to aus.electronics, and I
> can't say I ever remember him talking about guns on this group, except when
> you started and cross posted these threads for no good reason.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Jun 18, 3:40 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au>
wrote:
> **Oh yeah: Two more things:
>
> * If I was to crosspost (which I never do) I would never involve those
> psychopaths in the talk.politics.guns group with normal humans.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Er? you were saying?
"normal humans"?
regn.pickford
"Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:ui94m.10834$Kn1....@newsfe09.iad...
When other components have a lower rating?
John - Melb
> "Dennis" <den...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4a50ad82$0$2832$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
>
>
> > The vast majority in aus.electronics don't really care. Lets not trash our
> > working ng's by crossposting irrelevant topics.
>
> You're on record as having asked **Trevor not to post OT ?
>
Of course not, what a silly question, Trevor's one of their long
standing and most venerated posters
John - Melb
wrote:
> David, you can't reason with these kinds of people. Set up a proxy
> server and drop anything crossposted to any gun group, or politivcal
> group. Then you'll never see anything, no atter who posts it, or how
> often they change their nym.
Yep, that's right, you can't reason with "these people", 'cos we're
just rednecks, aren't Michael?
keithr
So answer him HERE! Just stop spreading your arguments where they aren't
wanted.
AFAIK aus.politics.guns was created to discuss the politics of gun
ownership in Australia, aus.electronics was not. 99% of the followers of
that forum are about as interested in the endless arguments over gun
ownership as 99% of those here are interested in the finer points of
electronic design, so what gives you the "Right" to impose your
arguments there.
keithr
nope it's just that some of them are fanatics, you can reason with rednecks.
Thomas
But it's OK for Trevor to spread his assertions on the subject here?
> AFAIK aus.politics.guns was created to discuss the politics of gun
> ownership in Australia, aus.electronics was not. 99% of the followers of
> that forum are about as interested in the endless arguments over gun
> ownership as 99% of those here are interested in the finer points of
> electronic design, so what gives you the "Right" to impose your
> arguments there
The same right's Trevor's got to spread his misinformation about US
gun dealers, DGU's and the "psychopaths in the talk.politics.guns
group"
Thomas
ROFLMAO!
keithr
If he is arguing about the politics of gun ownership then this is the
correct place for him to do so. If you wish to discuss aspects of
electronic design, I would expect you to do so in aus.electronics rather
than here. If you want to argue with Trevor about guns do it here, if
you want to argue with him about electronics do it there.
>> AFAIK aus.politics.guns was created to discuss the politics of gun
>> ownership in Australia, aus.electronics was not. 99% of the followers of
>> that forum are about as interested in the endless arguments over gun
>> ownership as 99% of those here are interested in the finer points of
>> electronic design, so what gives you the "Right" to impose your
>> arguments there
>
> The same right's Trevor's got to spread his misinformation about US
> gun dealers, DGU's and the "psychopaths in the talk.politics.guns
> group"
As far as I can see, looking through this NG, Trevor doesn't have a
monopoly on mis-information. Sort out your own arguments in your own
space rather than imposing them on people who have no interest in them
at all.
Scout
Sure, and once you get Trevor to limit his comments about guns and such
like to the appropriate newgroup(s) then no one will have any problems
keeping it out of an electronics newsgroup. However, if he brings up the
subject of guns there.....well he picked the battleground. Maybe you
should take up his choice of battleground with Trevor and get on his
case when he starts getting off topic.....or does that make too much sense?
keithr
> On Jul 5, 11:46 pm, John - Melb <mcnamara_j...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> David, while you're discussing his posting practices with your
>> "longest standing poster" you might want remind him of the claim he
>> posted on aus.electronics, that US gun dealers are using gunshows to
>> sell firearms illegally to criminals without carrying out background
>> checks. You might want to point out to him I asked him at the time to
>> cite some evidence to support this assertion. You might want to point
>> out that I'm still waiting for that evidence..................
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> On Jun 18, 12:54 pm, "Trevor Wilson"
>>
>> <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>> **Yes. Easily. Across the US, each year, there are hundreds of 'gun shows'.
>>> At these 'gun shows' dealers, posing as private citizens sell thousands of
>>> guns to criminals. They can do so, because there are virtually zero
>>> restrictions on the sale of 'second hand' guns. Even if that gun has only
>>> been 'second hand' for a couple of minutes and has never been fired. Here in
>>> Australia (and pretty much the rest of the developed world) ALL gun sales
>>> must be recorded and tracked. Even secondary sales. Such an action ensures
>>> that fewer guns end up in the hands of criminals.
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> As I said, he chose the field.
>>
>>
> People like Trevor, with their crazy and downright dangerous opinions
> on things from AGW, government power, & shredding basic constitutional
> rights, when these types get into government and/or any position of
> power, or even have the right to vote, over time, they ultimately
> create the need for guns in order to reclaim the rights that the trevs
> of this world destroy. A lot of lives and property are destroyed, and
> generations impoverished along the way.
So you are advocating armed revolution then?
> People in the past could be excused for "allowing" horrible things to
> happen, there would have been closed media, lack of balanced knowlege,
> and tons of propaganda.
There is probably more propaganda now than ever AND it comes from all
sides including your own
> The difference now is that with the internet and the wide range of
> sources available, its getting to the point where there is no excuse
> for allowing evil to flourish, and if it does, the average citizen now
> is responsible, as they had access to the facts.
And what particular evil are we talking about here?
> However I agree, the thread shouldnt be on an Electronics group.
Well that is something that we can agree on.
Mr.T
<edi...@netpath.net> wrote in message
news:e05647b6-8ebf-46fb...@a36g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>Wonder why the networks are going broke in America? Because ever-
>fewer people are willing to watch what amounts to a giant press
>release for leftist politicians and leftist advocacy groups -
You mean like that popular "Leftist" media network owned by Rupert Murdoch?
:-)
MrT.
Jeßus
said...
> John-Melb wrote:
> > From the Sporting Shooter's Association Website
>
> How is this of relevance to the aus.electronics group?
None. I'm beginning to suspect that 'John-Melb' is in fact another
'anti-gun zealot' in disguise. He's certainly having the desired effect,
if that's his real motive.
keithr
Trevor does what Trevor does and that is nothing to do with the rest of
the posters on the NG. I don't see that you have any argument whatever
he chooses to post there. If the posters of aus.electronics were to
start flooding this NG with postings about electronic design, then you
would have some grievance but the majority of the posters there are far
too considerate to do that.
As a side question - would you be whining and cross posting if he was
posting messages there that agreed with your point of view?
Thomas
> If he is arguing about the politics of gun ownership then this is the
> correct place for him to do so. If you wish to discuss aspects of
> electronic design, I would expect you to do so in aus.electronics rather
> than here. If you want to argue with Trevor about guns do it here, if
> you want to argue with him about electronics do it there.
Yep, but he isn't, he's spreading his assertions on aus.electronics.
We're arguing with Trevor on aus.electronic BECAUSE he is posting his
anti-gun garbage on aus.electronics.
> As far as I can see, looking through this NG, Trevor doesn't have a
> monopoly on mis-information. Sort out your own arguments in your own
> space rather than imposing them on people who have no interest in them
> at all.-
Have you said the same thing to Trevor about his comments regarding
American gun dealers, DGU's and "psychopaths in the talk.politics.guns
group ", if not, why not?
Thomas
Yep, and you do what you do, and I do what I do.
Trevor posts his anti-gun crap on aus.electronics, and you support his
right to post it there.
We respond and get whinged at.
Whilst Trevor chooses to use aus.electronics as a means to spread his
anti-gun rethoric, I'll be around. Live with it or take it up with
Trevor.
>
> As a side question - would you be whining and cross posting if he was
> posting messages there that agreed with your point of view?-
Someone with a history of posting untrue garbage on unrelated groups
in an attempt to vilify those who have done him no wrong? As Wilson
has previously done on both rec.audio.opinion and aus.hi-fi as well as
aus.electronics? Someone who repeatadly treats those who disagree with
him with contempt? Someone who point blank refuse to provide cites for
his claims like the time he provided a "cite" of "www.google.com" or
deliberately provides erroneous cites, like the time Wilson claimed
the FBI-UCR for 1976-86 were available on the FBI website? The answer
to your question is "Very likely".
Thomas
> Trevor does what Trevor does and that is nothing to do with the rest of
> the posters on the NG. I don't see that you have any argument whatever
> he chooses to post there. If the posters of aus.electronics were to
> start flooding this NG with postings about electronic design, then you
> would have some grievance but the majority of the posters there are far
> too considerate to do that.
It is very much something to do with other aus.electronic posters,
when Wilson posts his anti-gun garbage, like his normal people"
comments of his lies about US gun dealers, and you people support his
right to make those comments, but then sook like litle girls when an
alternative view is posted.
You're all squealing like stuck pigs, but NOT ONE of you has told
Trevor to take his anti-gun bullshit somewhere else, NOT FUCKING ONE!
As I previously stated, your decision to take sides make you active
combatants, you made that choice, live with it.
John - Melb
Interesting question Tom, I guess they aren't having a dig at Trevor
because they agree with him? As you said, active combatants.
John - Melb
> Trevor does what Trevor does and that is nothing to do with the rest of
> the posters on the NG. I don't see that you have any argument whatever
> he chooses to post there. If the posters of aus.electronics were to
> start flooding this NG with postings about electronic design, then you
> would have some grievance but the majority of the posters there are far
> too considerate to do that.
Almost sounds like a threat, I'm sure if we can put up with adds for
Chinese sneakers, we can put up with the likes of you.
>
> As a side question - would you be whining and cross posting if he was
> posting messages there that agreed with your point of view?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
keithr
Well that makes you both rude and stupid. If getting the gun ownership
laws relaxed then you should be getting people on your side not annoying
the crap out of them with your petty squabbles.
>> As a side question - would you be whining and cross posting if he was
>> posting messages there that agreed with your point of view?-
>
> Someone with a history of posting untrue garbage on unrelated groups
> in an attempt to vilify those who have done him no wrong? As Wilson
> has previously done on both rec.audio.opinion and aus.hi-fi as well as
> aus.electronics? Someone who repeatadly treats those who disagree with
> him with contempt? Someone who point blank refuse to provide cites for
> his claims like the time he provided a "cite" of "www.google.com" or
> deliberately provides erroneous cites, like the time Wilson claimed
> the FBI-UCR for 1976-86 were available on the FBI website? The answer
> to your question is "Very likely".
Your petty squabbles with Trevor are of zero interest to me and the
other posters in aus.electronics.
keithr
> On Jul 7, 2:08 pm, keithr <ke...@nowhere.com.au> wrote:
>
>> Trevor does what Trevor does and that is nothing to do with the rest of
>> the posters on the NG. I don't see that you have any argument whatever
>> he chooses to post there. If the posters of aus.electronics were to
>> start flooding this NG with postings about electronic design, then you
>> would have some grievance but the majority of the posters there are far
>> too considerate to do that.
>
> It is very much something to do with other aus.electronic posters,
> when Wilson posts his anti-gun garbage, like his normal people"
> comments of his lies about US gun dealers, and you people support his
> right to make those comments, but then sook like litle girls when an
> alternative view is posted.
It is absolutely nothing to do with other aus.electronic posters and
none of them care in the least about your rants. You are just giving the
gun lobby a bad name, and it gets worse every time you post there.
> You're all squealing like stuck pigs, but NOT ONE of you has told
> Trevor to take his anti-gun bullshit somewhere else, NOT FUCKING ONE!
Oink oink, Trevor's opinions about guns belong here same as yours they
don't belong in aus.electronics. The best way to deal with them is to
ignore them just as we do.
> As I previously stated, your decision to take sides make you active
> combatants, you made that choice, live with it.
Don't be such a petty fool, all that you will achieve is to disappear
into several dozen killfiles. I personally have taken no sides, I
simply don't care other than that you should keep your petty arguments
in your own area. BTW referring to others with different opinions as
combatants only reinforces the view that the gun lobby is a bunch of gun
crazy loonies. You do nothing to improve your own image
keithr
> On Jul 7, 2:08 pm, keithr <ke...@nowhere.com.au> wrote:
>
>> Trevor does what Trevor does and that is nothing to do with the rest of
>> the posters on the NG. I don't see that you have any argument whatever
>> he chooses to post there. If the posters of aus.electronics were to
>> start flooding this NG with postings about electronic design, then you
>> would have some grievance but the majority of the posters there are far
>> too considerate to do that.
>
> Almost sounds like a threat, I'm sure if we can put up with adds for
> Chinese sneakers, we can put up with the likes of you.
The threats seem to be coming from your mates, perhaps you should put
Thomas back on his chain, he is a public relations disaster for your group.
>
>> As a side question - would you be whining and cross posting if he was
>> posting messages there that agreed with your point of view?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
No answer to that then
Scout
Certainly not, it's not my primary newsgroup. You, however, seem to have
issues with what is or isn't posted there, and as such I thought you
might like to address it at the source. Otherwise, don't bitch when
people responds to his comments on other subjects.
>If the posters of aus.electronics were to
> start flooding this NG with postings about electronic design, then you
> would have some grievance but the majority of the posters there are far
> too considerate to do that.
I would unless they were talking to some poster here who was making
stupid comments about Australian electronics design, then I would think
that confronting and addressing his nonsense would be called
for....don't you?
>
> As a side question - would you be whining and cross posting if he was
> posting messages there that agreed with your point of view?
It's not a matter of POV but facts.
keithr
There's that word again "Combatants" are you guys as crazy as so many
people believe, you certainly do nothing to improve your image.
Actually, we don't dig at Trevor because we don't care.
Scout
keithr wrote:
> Thomas wrote:
>> On Jul 7, 2:08 pm, keithr <ke...@nowhere.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>> Trevor does what Trevor does and that is nothing to do with the rest of
>>> the posters on the NG. I don't see that you have any argument whatever
>>> he chooses to post there. If the posters of aus.electronics were to
>>> start flooding this NG with postings about electronic design, then you
>>> would have some grievance but the majority of the posters there are far
>>> too considerate to do that.
>>
>> It is very much something to do with other aus.electronic posters,
>> when Wilson posts his anti-gun garbage, like his normal people"
>> comments of his lies about US gun dealers, and you people support his
>> right to make those comments, but then sook like litle girls when an
>> alternative view is posted.
>
> It is absolutely nothing to do with other aus.electronic posters and
> none of them care in the least about your rants.
<snip>
If they don't care....then you can stop whining about it.
Otherwise, I suggest you take it up with Trevor, he picked the battleground
:-)
keithr
> On Jul 7, 11:44 am, keithr <ke...@nowhere.com.au> wrote:
>
>> If he is arguing about the politics of gun ownership then this is the
>> correct place for him to do so. If you wish to discuss aspects of
>> electronic design, I would expect you to do so in aus.electronics rather
>> than here. If you want to argue with Trevor about guns do it here, if
>> you want to argue with him about electronics do it there.
>
> Yep, but he isn't, he's spreading his assertions on aus.electronics.
> We're arguing with Trevor on aus.electronic BECAUSE he is posting his
> anti-gun garbage on aus.electronics.
I think that you are just using this as an excuse, when I look back
through the NG messages (back to feb) I see no such messages from him.
Is it just that he has recently annoyed your mate John and he took it on
himself to spread the argument.
>> As far as I can see, looking through this NG, Trevor doesn't have a
>> monopoly on mis-information. Sort out your own arguments in your own
>> space rather than imposing them on people who have no interest in them
>> at all.-
>
> Have you said the same thing to Trevor about his comments regarding
> American gun dealers, DGU's and "psychopaths in the talk.politics.guns
> group ", if not, why not?
Nope, by your own admission, Trevor has only posted such a message there
once and it was very properly ignored. What gives you the idea that the
aus.electronics posters are encouraging him? The whole thing would have
gone away if you had enough common sense to leave well alone. As it
stands, you have annoyed a whole bunch of people, and every time you
cross post another message there you annoy more. All you have achieved
is to swell the size of various killfiles and guarantee less votes for
the shooters party. I guess you'd have to call the whole exercise as
completely futile.
regn.pickford
"John - Melb" <mcnama...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9d1a8d56-4488-47a6...@12g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
Then it mustn't have come up about **Trevor's belief that
obtaining or possessing inanimate objects like Electronic smoke
alarms, Electronic fire control systems or fire extinguishers means you
are a pyromaniac in self denial and want to start fires.
You don't have an electronic smoke alarm unless you intend to use it.
keithr
What a pathetic whining little bunch of 9 year olds you are - "He
started it mister, it isn't our fault"
keithr
you agree with, you'd post messages in other NGs that he used accusing
him of lying - very likely indeed
Scout
Well, I didn't want to be the one to say that about you, but I'm happy
to see you can admit it.
Scout
Certainly, I've done it before when it was pointed out to me, because my
views aren't based on lies. Lies need to be address no matter who is
saying it, and in this newgroup you can expect your "mates" who agree
with your view to jump on you faster for lying than those who oppose
your view.
...or are you of the mind that lies by anyone, even your "mates",
shouldn't be addressed whenever/wherever they occur?
Thomas
> Thomas wrote:
> > On Jul 7, 11:44 am, keithr <ke...@nowhere.com.au> wrote:
>
> >> If he is arguing about the politics of gun ownership then this is the
> >> correct place for him to do so. If you wish to discuss aspects of
> >> electronic design, I would expect you to do so in aus.electronics rather
> >> than here. If you want to argue with Trevor about guns do it here, if
> >> you want to argue with him about electronics do it there.
>
> > Yep, but he isn't, he's spreading his assertions on aus.electronics.
> > We're arguing with Trevor on aus.electronic BECAUSE he is posting his
> > anti-gun garbage on aus.electronics.
>
> I think that you are just using this as an excuse, when I look back
> through the NG messages (back to feb) I see no such messages from him.
> Is it just that he has recently annoyed your mate John and he took it on
> himself to spread the argument.
Alright, I'll do a deal with you. Wanker Wilson used aus.electronics
as a forum to launch an attack on guns and gun owners, as he had
previously done on both rec.audio.opinion and aus.hi-fi. The material
posted in response to this demonstrates that Wilson often tells
porkies about firearms related matters and the anti-gun lobby in
general often it wrong. If you're prepared to tell Wilson to keep his
his anti-gun rethoric off aus.electronics, I'm prepared to walk away.
If Wilson continues to use aus.electronics as a vehicle to launch his
anti-gun tirades, all bets are off.
>
> >> As far as I can see, looking through this NG, Trevor doesn't have a
> >> monopoly on mis-information. Sort out your own arguments in your own
> >> space rather than imposing them on people who have no interest in them
> >> at all.-
>
> > Have you said the same thing to Trevor about his comments regarding
> > American gun dealers, DGU's and "psychopaths in the talk.politics.guns
> > group ", if not, why not?
>
> Nope, by your own admission, Trevor has only posted such a message there
> once and it was very properly ignored. What gives you the idea that the
> aus.electronics posters are encouraging him? The whole thing would have
> gone away if you had enough common sense to leave well alone. As it
> stands, you have annoyed a whole bunch of people, and every time you
> cross post another message there you annoy more. All you have achieved
> is to swell the size of various killfiles and guarantee less votes for
> the shooters party. I guess you'd have to call the whole exercise as
> completely futile.
So, it's OK for an anti-gun zealot like Wilson to makes his remarks
about guns and gun owners on aus.electronics, but the alternaie view
is not welcome. I don't think I've cost The Shooter's Party any votes
at all, you're minds were made up well before Wilson posted his
"normal people" rant. Responding to anti-gun zealots is never futile,
and as for posting in a forum where the anti view is welcomed but the
pro view is not, again, highlighting prejudice is always worthwhile.
Bob Larter
> On Jul 6, 4:28 pm, "David L. Jones" <altz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> You don't get it, I don't care about that stuff.
>> All I care about is people starting OT topics like that in aus.electronics.
>> "John-Melb" started two of them, that's why I spoke up after I let the first
>> one slide.
>>
>> Regards
>> Dave.
>
> You don't get it, I do, I don't care if he started the thread or used
> a thread already started, he used aus.electronics to launch an attack
> at gun ownership, as he done previously through rec.audio.opinion and
> aus.hi-fi.
Assuming that it's true, how is that the fault of every other
aus.electronics poster? What did we do to deserve being bombarded with
massively off-topic xposts?
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Larter
> On Jul 7, 2:08 pm, keithr <ke...@nowhere.com.au> wrote:
>
>> Trevor does what Trevor does and that is nothing to do with the rest of
>> the posters on the NG. I don't see that you have any argument whatever
>> he chooses to post there. If the posters of aus.electronics were to
>> start flooding this NG with postings about electronic design, then you
>> would have some grievance but the majority of the posters there are far
>> too considerate to do that.
>
> Almost sounds like a threat,
Oh please. He's just making an analogy.
Bob Larter
> keithr wrote:
[...]
>> If the posters of aus.electronics were to start flooding this NG with
>> postings about electronic design, then you would have some grievance
>> but the majority of the posters there are far too considerate to do that.
>
> I would unless they were talking to some poster here who was making
> stupid comments about Australian electronics design, then I would think
> that confronting and addressing his nonsense would be called
> for....don't you?
No. People talk complete rubbish about electronics all over Usenet. If
they don't say it here, who gives a stuff?
In summary: <http://xkcd.com/386/>
Thomas
> Thomas wrote:
> > On Jul 6, 4:28 pm, "David L. Jones" <altz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> You don't get it, I don't care about that stuff.
> >> All I care about is people starting OT topics like that in aus.electronics.
> >> "John-Melb" started two of them, that's why I spoke up after I let the first
> >> one slide.
>
> >> Regards
> >> Dave.
>
> > You don't get it, I do, I don't care if he started the thread or used
> > a thread already started, he used aus.electronics to launch an attack
> > at gun ownership, as he done previously through rec.audio.opinion and
> > aus.hi-fi.
>
> Assuming that it's true, how is that the fault of every other
> aus.electronics poster? What did we do to deserve being bombarded with
> massively off-topic xposts?
>
It is true, if you don't believe me, go check, Or I can paste it to
aus.electronics if you wish, however, I'm guessing you don't want me
to do that.
Others on aus.electronics are not responsible for what Wilson posts,
however, as Wilson choose to use aus.electronics as a vehicle to
launch his regular anti-gun tirades, then surely others have the right
to reply on the same forum? Without those replies, people's opinions
on this subject are formed solely on the rants of this zealot, rather
than hearing both sides of this debate.
Where other posters on aus.electronics are at fault, is that they're
quite happy to have Wilson post his off topic, anti-gun rants here,
but object strongly when an alternative opinion is posted. That one
sided view of what consitutes reasonable or on topic posts on
aus.electronics leads those who have observed or been invloved in the
gun debate for some time to see this as unfair. There's no point
arguing with those who are quite happy to see anti-gun posts on
aus.electronics, but object when a pro-gun (for want of a better term)
post appears, they've already formed their view on the gun "debate"
and as I previously stated, are active combatants in what John Crook
described as "the Australian Gun War"
F Murtz
> Thomas wrote:
>> On Jul 7, 11:44 am, keithr <ke...@nowhere.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>> If he is arguing about the politics of gun ownership then this is the
>>> correct place for him to do so. If you wish to discuss aspects of
>>> electronic design, I would expect you to do so in aus.electronics rather
>>> than here. If you want to argue with Trevor about guns do it here, if
>>> you want to argue with him about electronics do it there.
>>
>> Yep, but he isn't, he's spreading his assertions on aus.electronics.
>> We're arguing with Trevor on aus.electronic BECAUSE he is posting his
>> anti-gun garbage on aus.electronics.
>
> I think that you are just using this as an excuse, when I look back
> through the NG messages (back to feb) I see no such messages from him.
> Is it just that he has recently annoyed your mate John and he took it on
> himself to spread the argument.
Someone started a thread about stun guns and Trevor used this topic to
rant about guns
Bob Larter
>>> You don't get it, I do, I don't care if he started the thread or used
>>> a thread already started, he used aus.electronics to launch an attack
>>> at gun ownership, as he done previously through rec.audio.opinion and
>>> aus.hi-fi.
>> Assuming that it's true, how is that the fault of every other
>> aus.electronics poster? What did we do to deserve being bombarded with
>> massively off-topic xposts?
>>
>
> It is true, if you don't believe me, go check, Or I can paste it to
> aus.electronics if you wish, however, I'm guessing you don't want me
> to do that.
>
> Others on aus.electronics are not responsible for what Wilson posts,
> however, as Wilson choose to use aus.electronics as a vehicle to
> launch his regular anti-gun tirades, then surely others have the right
> to reply on the same forum?
Hell no. If someone in one of the gun groups decided to mouth off about
something relating to electronics, would you want us to drown the gun
groups in tirades against that person? At the very least, I doubt that
you'd be interested in the resulting thread.
> Without those replies, people's opinions
> on this subject are formed solely on the rants of this zealot, rather
> than hearing both sides of this debate.
You clearly have a low opinions of peoples' ability to make up their own
minds.
> Where other posters on aus.electronics are at fault, is that they're
> quite happy to have Wilson post his off topic, anti-gun rants here,
That's a big assumption. Speaking for myself - & probably many others in
aus.electronics - I skipped over the Taser thread because I'm profoundly
uninterested in the pro/anti gun debate. Yes, I have my opinions on the
topic, but they're not on the pro or anti side, & they're totally
off-topic for aus.electronics. In the unlikely event that I develop an
interest in either side of the debate, I'll sub to one of the relevent
newsgroups.
> but object strongly when an alternative opinion is posted. That one
> sided view of what consitutes reasonable or on topic posts on
> aus.electronics leads those who have observed or been invloved in the
> gun debate for some time to see this as unfair. There's no point
> arguing with those who are quite happy to see anti-gun posts on
> aus.electronics, but object when a pro-gun (for want of a better term)
> post appears, they've already formed their view on the gun "debate"
You're missing the point, which is that, IMHO, most of the posters here
either couldn't care less about the issue, or simply aren't interested
in arguing about it.
In summary; the guy xposting stuff between here & the gun groups is
being a dickhead, & you won't score any points with anyone by being just
as big a dickhead.
keithr
that reply makes no sense at all, although it does sound rather childish.
keithr
There are a bunch of people over in aus.electronics who may or may not
have had open minds before you buffoons blundered in, I suspect that you
have now made their minds up for them, and not in the direction that you
would like.
> Responding to anti-gun zealots is never futile,
> and as for posting in a forum where the anti view is welcomed but the
> pro view is not, again, highlighting prejudice is always worthwhile.
>
From the exchanges that I have had here, it would appear that
highlighting the prejudices of pro gun zealots is similarly futile.
Everybody seems to have a totally closed mind and is simply attempting
to shout the other side down.
keithr
> keithr wrote:
>> Thomas wrote:
>>> On Jul 7, 11:44 am, keithr <ke...@nowhere.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>> If he is arguing about the politics of gun ownership then this is the
>>>> correct place for him to do so. If you wish to discuss aspects of
>>>> electronic design, I would expect you to do so in aus.electronics
>>>> rather
>>>> than here. If you want to argue with Trevor about guns do it here, if
>>>> you want to argue with him about electronics do it there.
>>>
>>> Yep, but he isn't, he's spreading his assertions on aus.electronics.
>>> We're arguing with Trevor on aus.electronic BECAUSE he is posting his
>>> anti-gun garbage on aus.electronics.
>>
>> I think that you are just using this as an excuse, when I look back
>> through the NG messages (back to feb) I see no such messages from him.
>> Is it just that he has recently annoyed your mate John and he took it
>> on himself to spread the argument.
>
>
> Someone started a thread about stun guns and Trevor used this topic to
> rant about guns
>
Fran
> "John - Melb" <mcnamara_j...@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:9d1a8d56-4488-47a6...@12g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 6, 6:30 am, "regn.pickford" <r...@mysoul.cop.au> wrote:
>
> > "Dennis" <den...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:4a50ad82$0$2832$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
> >> > The vast majority in aus.electronics don't really care. Lets not trash
> >> > our
> >> > working ng's by crossposting irrelevant topics.
>
> >> You're on record as having asked **Trevor not to post OT ?
>
> >Of course not, what a silly question, Trevor's one of their long
> >standing and most venerated posters
>
> Then it mustn't have come up about **Trevor's belief that
> obtaining or possessing inanimate objects like Electronic smoke
> alarms, Electronic fire control systems or fire extinguishers means you
> are a pyromaniac in self denial and want to start fires.
>
That's just a silly strawman. Without taking a view on the claim that
all gun owners are putative serial killers, the structure of the
analogy is 180 deg away from the gun claim.
> You don't have an electronic smoke alarm unless you intend to use it.
>
>
Obviously.
I have smoke alarms and I hope they will operate if a fire starts.
There is a fire extinguisher in my classroom. It is tested every year
by a professional. I will use it if the need arises.
Fran
F Murtz
where he did.
keithr
Where is here? If you mean aus.electronics, what makes you think that
people are happy with it? That was an exchange between Trevor and one
other person who is herself a peripheral member of several online
communities until John-melb felt the need to join in with his stomping
boots. Had he not done so, the debate would probably have died there.
If you mean aus.politics.guns, then he obviously has a perfect right to
put his opinions even if they offend you, that is what this NG is for
isn't it? Or is only one point of view allowed mein Komondant?
What is it about Trevor that you guys feel the need stalk him all over
Usenet? You scared of him or something?
> but object strongly when an alternative opinion is posted. That one
> sided view of what consitutes reasonable or on topic posts on
> aus.electronics leads those who have observed or been invloved in the
> gun debate for some time to see this as unfair. There's no point
> arguing with those who are quite happy to see anti-gun posts on
> aus.electronics, but object when a pro-gun (for want of a better term)
> post appears,
Then make everybody happy and don't do it
> they've already formed their view on the gun "debate"
> and as I previously stated, are active combatants in what John Crook
> described as "the Australian Gun War"
What makes you think that they have any views on the subject. Not
everybody cares one way or the other, you don't seem to be able to grasp
that concept though do you?
>> --
>> W
>> . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
>> \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
>> ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
That is the sort of saying that earns you guys the title of gun loonies.
Fran
> On Jul 5, 10:51 pm, John - Melb <mcnamara_j...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 5, 10:39 pm, "David L. Jones" <altz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Oh, that recent OT thread that you started and also cross posted to
> > > aus.electronics?
>
> > No, look again.
>
> Try here
> -------------------------------------------
> On Jun 16, 3:21 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au>
> wrote:
>
> > **Despite the fact that VASTLY more Americans carry guns around the streets,
> > legally, the US remains the most dangerous, deadly Western, developed
> > Democratic nations. Carrying guns achieves, at best, nothing. At worst, it
> > leads to more violence and death. In fact, the US homicide rate is presently
> > 3 times the Australian one.
>
You are mistaken adducing this as evidence of x-posting to
aus.electronics by Trevor Wilson, John.
This campe from a topic [Stun Guns] started in aus.tv by one of their
trolls: "Gordon Lightfoot". It was x-posted to aus.electronics by
Sylvia Else. All replies then (including that by Trevor with the
passage you cite) carried this as follow up.
I haven't bothered to see if there are indeed instances in which
Trevor has x-posted to aus.electronics on the topic of guns, but this
above claim is refuted as an instantiation of the proposition.
Fran
Australia Mining Pioneer & Founder of the True Geology
*> "Despair is an enormous problem," says Flannery. "There is no sign
the
*> situation will ever improve."
*> more by Tim Flannery - Jul 6, 2009 - Macleans.ca (1 occurrences)
Dear Mr Kanga,
Thank you so much for your update on the dire situation, in which
Australia is finding itself as a result of its Collective Crimes.
So the regular Retards as usual can only reply by catcalls, or the
typical moronic comment on top of their Squeezy type voices : It's
reening oootside !
Oh ya !
... but the country side demonstrates that the Great Sandy Desert is
waiting to walk in & take control, as required
What I find strange as well, is the fact that the Sheeple do not seem
concerned by the situation, as evident from following aus.ng.(s)
Except you, Mr Kanga, none wants to ponder on the long term
consequences of the Collective Chastisements,,which you are indeed
clearly outlaying :
- Every two days an Australian Farmer is murdered in cold blood by
some financial vulture
- Over 20 000 Farmers' families have walked off the land since the DDD
( Divine Drudging Drought) started 10 years ago
- The water fed to 1.2 millions people in Adelaide & around is not fit
for sheep & cattle
- The REAL purpose of the planned weir on the Murray is to prevent sea
water flowing upstream, confirming then the obligation to open, this
very year indeed, the Coorong & Lower Lakes to the mighty South Seas.
The official story up to your latest precisions being that weir going
to store fresh water for Adelaide ... But the Murray Darling trickle
about to be converted into a Camel Race track, we know now that weir
to be used by the bookmakers & putters betting on the Camels.
I find it strange as well that the usual rags are very careful to
avoid raising such issue in the columns ...afraid I suppose to fend
off good people away from the Land of Bastards ( this not meant for
you, mate) , and stop the trickle of unaware strangers coming from
France & elsewhere visiting that Austral Hell on Earth ? I bet it
is !
On the practical side, I had a research on Tipperary station and found
the following on the
Selwyn Johnston Qld MP
http://www.johnston-independent.com/welcome_c.html#ts
He said
QUOTE
The STRATEGICALLY placed Tipperary Station, the nearest Northern
Territory land facing Jakarta, possessing a huge, internationally
rated all-weather airstrip, sea and river frontage, was utilised by
the Japanese in WW2 who established a forward camp on the banks of the
Daly River.
While Australia's Foreign Aid provides the equivalent of $100 for
every Australian man, woman and child into supporting Suharto's
Indonesian regime - $1.7 billion - the Indonesian elite is buying or
has bought large tracts of land in the Northern Territory.
The Australian government MUST as a matter of NATIONAL SECURITY,
implement immediate procedures to restrict foreign ownership of
Australia's land mass and convert current ownership to 10 - 15 year
pastoral leases, with their complying to the same regulations as
Australian farmers and graziers.
UNQUOTE
This is confirming here you usual assertion that Australia is run by
Traitors, to both their country & their people... Political Crawlers &
Puppets whose strings are pulled from behind the stage !
The West Australia Whorehouse is run in fact by Mining & Financial
Criminals of the Newmont / Newcrest / Boral / BHP class,who would
not hesitate to murder MP ( as the Hon T.D Evans Member Kalgoorlie) or
Corporate Prospector ( as Father Bert Rutherford formerly with Narla,
wholly owned subsidiary of Boral & used as smoke screen in the
abominable Telfer Mine Swindle) ... or kick out one of Australia
leading Mining Pioneer to remove any opposition to their fabricated
Australia Mining History and leave room for their incensed Mining
frauds like Tyrwhitt, Thomson, Barr, Atkinson ( those pretentious
filth able to find mineral deposits by peering over the cockpit &
landing in the Desert to take samples)
The Federal Parliament being run the same way in light of the Port
Arthur Mass Murder orchestrated by Australia very Government of Howard
( to pass through his Gun Control Law) and the murder in cold blood
of Australia finest Prime Minister of all times the Right Hon. Harold
Holt ( may be Howard was party into that too, providing the spear)
All things considered then, and in accordance with you consideration
that no redemption should be granted freely to such congregation of
hard nailed & stiff necked sinners, I solemnly confirm to you here,
that the Collective Chastisements are extended sine die, OR until the
Convict Rabble repent as a single man and beg for pardon &
forgiveness. Then I will set my recommendation for a return to
normality, and amongst those in all priority :
Royal Inquiry into Howards Govt 's Port Arthur Mass Murders, with
Howard to be hanged high & short for high treason against Australia.
Promised Royal Inquiry into the Telfer Mine Mass Swindle, with
Tyrwhitt, Searls Barr & Atkinson to be flogged with the Cat' O nine
tails, and then sent to Roy Hill St to work the shearer season & get
those fucking bludger getting a good sweat for the first time in
their lives
...by the way, Tim Flannery is quite correct, despair is an enormous
problem in the LOB, and it has further the favour of Mining &
Political Criminals
Pour le Royal Khranfauss de l'Oued Rir et des Saharas
et par son geste
Sir Jean-Paul Turcaud
Australia Mining Pioneer
Founder of the True Geology
~ Ignorance is the Cosmic Sin, the One Never Forgiven ~
Published by AMERICAN CHRONICLE
"True Geology" Foundation Document
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/69327
"Turcaud Bath" as a free gift to Suffering Humanity
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/107
John - Melb
Stomping boots? awfully hard to type on a key board with stomping
boots.
Trevor posted anti-gun rants on aus.electronics, you people seem to
think that's just fine but when an alternative opinion is placed, you
all start squealing about O/T posts.
If Trevor, one of aus.electronics "long standing members" has the
right to post his anti-gun, anti gun owner rants on aus.electronics,
then I've got every right to post on the inane rantings of anti-gun
zealots.
>
> If you mean aus.politics.guns, then he obviously has a perfect right to
> put his opinions even if they offend you, that is what this NG is for
> isn't it? Or is only one point of view allowed mein Komondant?
Not at all, as far as I'm aware all opinion are welcome here, Trevor's
problem is he gets spanked for telling porkies here, so he scurries
away and posts rants about guns and gun owners on totally unrelated
groups, hpoing to sway the opinion of those unfamiliar with the
subject. He's done it previously on aus.hi-fi and rec.audio.opinion,
and now he's doing it on aus.electronics.
>
> What is it about Trevor that you guys feel the need stalk him all over
> Usenet? You scared of him or something?
ROFLMAO!
>
> > but object strongly when an alternative opinion is posted. That one
> > sided view of what consitutes reasonable or on topic posts on
> > aus.electronics leads those who have observed or been invloved in the
> > gun debate for some time to see this as unfair. There's no point
> > arguing with those who are quite happy to see anti-gun posts on
> > aus.electronics, but object when a pro-gun (for want of a better term)
> > post appears,
>
> Then make everybody happy and don't do it
Have you said the same thing to Trevor Tosspot? If not, why not?
>
> > they've already formed their view on the gun "debate"
> > and as I previously stated, are active combatants in what John Crook
> > described as "the Australian Gun War"
>
> What makes you think that they have any views on the subject. Not
> everybody cares one way or the other, you don't seem to be able to grasp
> that concept though do you?
>
You views are quite clear, you've no problem with Trevor's anti-gun
rants on aus.electronics, but cannot handle an alternative viewpoint
being posted.
> >> --
> >> W
> >> . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
> >> \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
> >> ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> That is the sort of saying that earns you guys the title of gun loonies.- Hide quoted text -
John - Melb
Hello Fran,
I haven't heard from you in a long time, how have you been? I
sincerely hope you and yours are doing well.
On this, Dear Lady, you and I must agree to disagree, Trevor did post
it there because I read it there.
Regards
John.
Fran
We are all doing well. Thanks.
> On this, Dear Lady, you and I must agree to disagree, Trevor did post
> it there because I read it there.
>
That is acknowledged in the answer above. The quesiton is: Did he x-
post to aus.electronics or merely follow the follow-up set by somebody
else (pun intended)?
I know that from time to time, my posts go to groups I wasn't
considering when I posted, simply because I've answered them in
aus.politics (as is the case here) without trimming the follow-ups.
One poster in aus.politcs likes to x-post to aus.flame and on each
occasion I notice, I trim it, but some slip through.
Fran
Fran
<snip>
>
> Where other posters on aus.electronics are at fault, is that they're
> quite happy to have Wilson post his off topic, anti-gun rants here,
> but object strongly when an alternative opinion is posted. That one
> sided view of what consitutes reasonable or on topic posts on
> aus.electronics leads those who have observed or been involved in the
> gun debate for some time to see this as unfair.
<snip>
Ok there are a couple of problems right here.
1. Your assumption that the subscribers of aus.electronics are "quite
happy to have Wilson post his off topic, anti-gun rants here".
If they were encouraging him, you might have a point, but as far as I
can tell, they haven't. They are ignoring him on this topic just as
one ignores spam about sex services and cheap deals on herbal
medications or sunglasses or other off-topic stuff that appears in
groups that we read.
It's not surprising that they object to someone posting an
"alternative opinion" because they weren't interested in the original
opinion and now the person posting off-topic has someone with which to
continue posting off-topic. Your inference that this goes to content
is unjustified.
2. If you really believed that Trevor was being encouraged to post his
"off topic, anti-gun rants here" and that the responses to you were
driven by political sympathy for the gun control position, you might
well wonder why
a) these people would be interested in the other side of the debate.
If they really are hostile, what's the point of posting? Surely they
will already be aware of the pro-gun claims and have rejected them on
one ground or another.
b) Why wouldn't they appear in gun discussion groups and take it up
there?
Your justification seems to be that people in aus.electronics are
guilty of being insufficiently rude to Trevor and accordingly, you
mean to punish them for "giving aid and comfort" to him by posting
your screeds to aus.electronics. In short, it's not about debate. It's
about getting even with Trevor and anyone who tolerates him because
you don't like him or his ideas.
This reflects rather poorly on you.
Fran
David L. Jones
No, it happened just the way Fran said it did.
You are the only person who has posted (two) new threads to aus.electronics
about guns, hence the complaints.
Trevor has never posted directly to aus.electronics about guns.
Sylvia is the original cuplit here, but seeing as that the "Stun gun" thread
at the time actually had something to do with electronics, the cross-post
was understandable.
Regards
Dave.
--
================================================
Check out my Electronics Engineering Video Blog & Podcast:
http://www.alternatezone.com/eevblog/
John - Melb
> On Jul 8, 1:10 pm, Thomas <recalcitrant_redn...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
> > Where other posters on aus.electronics are at fault, is that they're
> > quite happy to have Wilson post his off topic, anti-gun rants here,
> > but object strongly when an alternative opinion is posted. That one
> > sided view of what consitutes reasonable or on topic posts on
> > aus.electronics leads those who have observed or been involved in the
> > gun debate for some time to see this as unfair.
>
> <snip>
>
> Ok there are a couple of problems right here.
>
> 1. Your assumption that the subscribers of aus.electronics are "quite
> happy to have Wilson post his off topic, anti-gun rants here".
>
> If they were encouraging him, you might have a point, but as far as I
> can tell, they haven't. They are ignoring him on this topic just as
> one ignores spam about sex services and cheap deals on herbal
> medications or sunglasses or other off-topic stuff that appears in
> groups that we read.
>
Fran, I hope you don't mind if I respond.
The encouragement comes from attacking the counter point, Trevor now
knows that he can post whatever anti-gun rants he likes on
aus.electronics, and others posting there will neither challenge or
question him, however anybody posting an alternative viewpoint will be
hounded by all those "not interested" ones.
> It's not surprising that they object to someone posting an
> "alternative opinion" because they weren't interested in the original
> opinion and now the person posting off-topic has someone with which to
> continue posting off-topic. Your inference that this goes to content
> is unjustified.
Really? other than content, what difference in the differing posts?
>
> 2. If you really believed that Trevor was being encouraged to post his
> "off topic, anti-gun rants here" and that the responses to you were
> driven by political sympathy for the gun control position, you might
> well wonder why
Looking at the apparent depth of feeling expressed, I think that
decision was made long before any of this started.
>
> a) these people would be interested in the other side of the debate.
> If they really are hostile, what's the point of posting? Surely they
> will already be aware of the pro-gun claims and have rejected them on
> one ground or another.
>
> b) Why wouldn't they appear in gun discussion groups and take it up
> there?
>
> Your justification seems to be that people in aus.electronics are
> guilty of being insufficiently rude to Trevor and accordingly, you
> mean to punish them for "giving aid and comfort" to him by posting
> your screeds to aus.electronics. In short, it's not about debate. It's
> about getting even with Trevor and anyone who tolerates him because
> you don't like him or his ideas.
>
No Fran, it's about debate, Trevor's opinions, despite being off
topic are welcome there, any differing opinion, is not.
> This reflects rather poorly on you.
Perhaps it does, but considering the vilifiation I've received over
the last decade or so, it is a learned response.
Regards
John.
>
> Fran
John - Melb
> Alright, I'll do a deal with you. Wanker Wilson used aus.electronics
> as a forum to launch an attack on guns and gun owners, as he had
> previously done on both rec.audio.opinion and aus.hi-fi. The material
> posted in response to this demonstrates that Wilson often tells
> porkies about firearms related matters and the anti-gun lobby in
> general often it wrong. If you're prepared to tell Wilson to keep his
> his anti-gun rethoric off aus.electronics, I'm prepared to walk away.
>
> If Wilson continues to use aus.electronics as a vehicle to launch his
> anti-gun tirades, all bets are off.
>
Count me on that one too, Tom.
>
> So, it's OK for an anti-gun zealot like Wilson to makes his remarks
> about guns and gun owners on aus.electronics, but the alternaie view
> is not welcome. I don't think I've cost The Shooter's Party any votes
> at all, you're minds were made up well before Wilson posted his
> "normal people" rant. Responding to anti-gun zealots is never futile,
> and as for posting in a forum where the anti view is welcomed but the
> pro view is not, again, highlighting prejudice is always worthwhile
I agree with that too!
Dammit Tom, so being so bloody reasonable!
John - Melb
> No, it happened just the way Fran said it did.
Yep, sure it did.
> You are the only person who has posted (two) new threads to aus.electronics
> about guns, hence the complaints.
> Trevor has never posted directly to aus.electronics about guns.
Trevor's "psychopath" remarks about TPG posters appeared on
aus.electronics - you people said nothing
Trevor's "normal people" remarks about TPG posters appeared on
aus.electronics - you people said nothing
Trevor's claims about gun dealers using gunshows to avoid compliance
with GCA-68 appeared on aus.electronics - you people said nothing.
Trevor's totally irrelevant remarks about DGU's, for which he's been
shown a fool so many times on gun related groups, appeared on
aus.electronics - you people said nothing.
As soon as "Trevor Tosspot's Porky List" appears, you people begin
ranting about O/T posts.
Clearly, you minds were well and truely made up a very long time ago.
Tom and I have given you an "out", tell Trevor his anti- gun rants
aren't welcome on aus.electronics, treat him exactly the same way
you've treated other posting on the same subject.
I don't recon you're capable of doing it.
keithr
So some argument between Sylvia Else and Trevor gives you the excuse to
invade another NG to push your view?
keithr
That may explain the poor quality of your posts then
> Trevor posted anti-gun rants on aus.electronics, you people seem to
> think that's just fine but when an alternative opinion is placed, you
> all start squealing about O/T posts.
We ignore his rants, you aren't placing an alternative opinion, you are
screaming a rants. Nobody is squealing about O/T posts, we are
complaining about a gang of thugs invading a news group to push their
unwanted political point of view.
> If Trevor, one of aus.electronics "long standing members" has the
> right to post his anti-gun, anti gun owner rants on aus.electronics,
> then I've got every right to post on the inane rantings of anti-gun
> zealots.
This is the internet, you have no rights
So the rest of us have to put up with your inane pro gun rantings
because we don't act as topic nazis
>> If you mean aus.politics.guns, then he obviously has a perfect right to
>> put his opinions even if they offend you, that is what this NG is for
>> isn't it? Or is only one point of view allowed mein Komondant?
>
> Not at all, as far as I'm aware all opinion are welcome here, Trevor's
> problem is he gets spanked for telling porkies here, so he scurries
> away and posts rants about guns and gun owners on totally unrelated
> groups, hpoing to sway the opinion of those unfamiliar with the
> subject. He's done it previously on aus.hi-fi and rec.audio.opinion,
> and now he's doing it on aus.electronics.
>> What is it about Trevor that you guys feel the need stalk him all over
>> Usenet? You scared of him or something?
>
>
> ROFLMAO!
Well why do you stalk him? The people on those other NGs take no notice
of his views, all you are doing is drawing attention to them. Its called
shooting yourself in the foot.
>>> but object strongly when an alternative opinion is posted. That one
>>> sided view of what consitutes reasonable or on topic posts on
>>> aus.electronics leads those who have observed or been invloved in the
>>> gun debate for some time to see this as unfair. There's no point
>>> arguing with those who are quite happy to see anti-gun posts on
>>> aus.electronics, but object when a pro-gun (for want of a better term)
>>> post appears,
>> Then make everybody happy and don't do it
>
> Have you said the same thing to Trevor Tosspot? If not, why not?
>>> they've already formed their view on the gun "debate"
>>> and as I previously stated, are active combatants in what John Crook
>>> described as "the Australian Gun War"
>> What makes you think that they have any views on the subject. Not
>> everybody cares one way or the other, you don't seem to be able to grasp
>> that concept though do you?
>>
> You views are quite clear, you've no problem with Trevor's anti-gun
> rants on aus.electronics, but cannot handle an alternative viewpoint
> being posted.
You really don't have a clue do you
John - Melb
But Trevor's point of view is OK?
>
> > If Trevor, one of aus.electronics "long standing members" has the
> > right to post his anti-gun, anti gun owner rants on aus.electronics,
> > then I've got every right to post on the inane rantings of anti-gun
> > zealots.
>
> This is the internet, you have no rights
>
> So the rest of us have to put up with your inane pro gun rantings
> because we don't act as topic nazis
No, you only act as topic nazis when someone posts something that
upsets your prejudices
The why don't to try to educate me? (This'll be good)
>
>
>
> >>>> --
> >>>> W
> >>>> . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
> >>>> \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
> >>>> ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
> >> That is the sort of saying that earns you guys the title of gun loonies.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
keithr
> No Fran, it's about debate, Trevor's opinions, despite being off
> topic are welcome there, any differing opinion, is not.
If you consider this debate then obviously you have some trouble
comprehending the meaning of the term
>> This reflects rather poorly on you.
>
> Perhaps it does, but considering the vilifiation I've received over
> the last decade or so, it is a learned response.
If you are being regularly vilified then perhaps you should consider
that there may be valid reasons for it. Invading other totally unrelated
NGs could be one of those reasons.
John - Melb
> So some argument between Sylvia Else and Trevor gives you the excuse to
> invade another NG to push your view?-
No, Trevor using aus.electronics to push his views gives us the excuse
to push our views in the same forum.
keithr
> On Jul 8, 5:31 pm, "David L. Jones" <altz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> No, it happened just the way Fran said it did.
>
> Yep, sure it did.
>
>> You are the only person who has posted (two) new threads to aus.electronics
>> about guns, hence the complaints.
>> Trevor has never posted directly to aus.electronics about guns.
>
> Trevor's "psychopath" remarks about TPG posters appeared on
> aus.electronics - you people said nothing
because we didn't care, why should we, you don't care what gets posted
about electronics.
> Trevor's "normal people" remarks about TPG posters appeared on
> aus.electronics - you people said nothing
because we didn't care, why should we, you don't care what gets posted
about electronics.
> Trevor's claims about gun dealers using gunshows to avoid compliance
> with GCA-68 appeared on aus.electronics - you people said nothing.
because we didn't care, why should we, you don't care what gets posted
about electronics.
> Trevor's totally irrelevant remarks about DGU's, for which he's been
> shown a fool so many times on gun related groups, appeared on
> aus.electronics - you people said nothing.
because we didn't care, why should we, you don't care what gets posted
about electronics.
> As soon as "Trevor Tosspot's Porky List" appears, you people begin
> ranting about O/T posts.
>
> Clearly, you minds were well and truely made up a very long time ago.
When is it going to sink into your thick skull - no minds were made up
because nobody cared
> Tom and I have given you an "out", tell Trevor his anti- gun rants
> aren't welcome on aus.electronics, treat him exactly the same way
> you've treated other posting on the same subject.
<sarcasm> You are such a charitable person, offering not to hassle
people as long as they do just as you say </sarcasm>
Sounds like the offer that you can't refuse - smack Trevor if he ever
mentions the word "Gun" and your news group won't accidentally burn down.
> I don't recon you're capable of doing it.
Nobody cares about Trevor's gun rantings, so why should we bother, and I
suspect that your standover tactics make it less likely than if you had
left well alone. Your attitude is the best argument that I have ever
seen for total gun control, if you act like this in the real world and
you own a gun then you are obviously a danger to society.
John - Melb
> because we didn't care, why should we, you don't care what gets posted
> about electronics.
> because we didn't care, why should we, you don't care what gets posted
> about electronics.
> because we didn't care, why should we, you don't care what gets posted
> about electronics.
> because we didn't care, why should we, you don't care what gets posted
> about electronics.
For someone who doesn't care, you doing an awful lot of chanting?
keithr
Have you ever considered that you may be paranoid, if Trevor was using
aus.electronics to push his views why does he not post them more often?
In fact why doesn't he start threads about it? Why is it that most of
the threads that he has put his views in are actually cross posts? Why
do you think that his views on guns are of any interest to anybody other
than yourselves?
Scout
Bob Larter wrote:
> Thomas wrote:
>> On Jul 8, 12:07 pm, Bob Larter <bobbylar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Thomas wrote:
> [...]
>>>> You don't get it, I do, I don't care if he started the thread or used
>>>> a thread already started, he used aus.electronics to launch an attack
>>>> at gun ownership, as he done previously through rec.audio.opinion and
>>>> aus.hi-fi.
>>> Assuming that it's true, how is that the fault of every other
>>> aus.electronics poster? What did we do to deserve being bombarded with
>>> massively off-topic xposts?
>>>
>>
>> It is true, if you don't believe me, go check, Or I can paste it to
>> aus.electronics if you wish, however, I'm guessing you don't want me
>> to do that.
>>
>> Others on aus.electronics are not responsible for what Wilson posts,
>> however, as Wilson choose to use aus.electronics as a vehicle to
>> launch his regular anti-gun tirades, then surely others have the right
>> to reply on the same forum?
>
> Hell no. If someone in one of the gun groups decided to mouth off about
> something relating to electronics, would you want us to drown the gun
> groups in tirades against that person?
Feel free.
> At the very least, I doubt that
> you'd be interested in the resulting thread.
Yep, and since I know how to work my filters.....
>> Without those replies, people's opinions
>> on this subject are formed solely on the rants of this zealot, rather
>> than hearing both sides of this debate.
>
> You clearly have a low opinions of peoples' ability to make up their own
> minds.
How can you make up your mind unless you are also told the truth?
Anyway, Trevor chose the battleground. I suggest you take it up with him.
keithr
I have been but you are too thick to notice (good enough?)
keithr
Its called cut and paste, but that may be beyond your skill level.