_Come and Take Them (Carerra)_ by Tom Kratman

[Lynn McGuire]

_Come and Take Them (Carerra)_ by Tom Kratman
https://www.amazon.com/Come-Take-Them-Carerra-Kratman/dp/1476780420/

Book number five in a series of six books of alternate history military science fiction. Published in MMPB. I own the sixth book
and plan to read it soon.

Kind of a rehash of the fourth book in the series. I am not sure where we are going here and am starting to lose interest.

My rating: 3.8 out of 5 stars
Amazon rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars (100 reviews)

Lynn

[Dimensional Traveler]

I've been reading this series. There may be only six published to date
but there are at least three more in the pipeline for it. As for where
its heading, I'd say a global war.


--
Running the rec.arts.TV Channels Watched Survey for Summer 2016

[hamis...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 6:02:57 AM UTC+10, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
> On 7/25/2016 11:27 AM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> > Book number five in a series of six books

> I've been reading this series. There may be only six published to date
> but there are at least three more in the pipeline for it. As for where
> its heading, I'd say a global war.
>

Lynn always seems to write "of a x book series" when what he means is "x books have been released so far"

[mcdow...@sky.com]

In what sense is this alternate history? I've only read Amazon Legion, but I didn't have any sense that it was set on a version of our Earth, and I missed anything that would have flagged a point of departure? I would have said that Alternate History is set in a world that could have been our own if one (or possibly a small number) of events had turned out differently.

[Moriarty]

On Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 4:27:09 AM UTC+10, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> _Come and Take Them (Carerra)_ by Tom Kratman
> https://www.amazon.com/Come-Take-Them-Carerra-Kratman/dp/1476780420/

Snerk. A quick look at the Amazon reviews shows Krapman is still flaming people for not liking his books.

> Book number five in a series of six books of alternate history military science fiction. Published in MMPB. I own the sixth book
> and plan to read it soon.
>
> Kind of a rehash of the fourth book in the series. I am not sure where we are going here and am starting to lose interest.
>
> My rating: 3.8 out of 5 stars

Is there any reason you go the extra decimal place in a 5 star rating system?

-Moriarty

[tomkr...@gmail.com]

Hmmm...without knowing which one you mean as "fourth book," Amazon Legion or Lotus Eaters, it's hard to address this. I suspect you don't mean Lotus Eaters because (spoiler warning) a coup and a massive drug raid do not a nationwide ambush equal. So I think you must mean Amazon Legion.

Assuming so, "rehash" is the wrong word. Amazon Legion takes place as a parallel story to the main story arc. It's operationally important to that, while being a real world caution against what was obviously about to become an exercise in cutting the arms forces hearts out on the altar of progrssivism.

Because of that parallel aspect, there are a few places in other volumes - I don't really recall how many so let's call it half a dozen - where a usually minor scene is essentially repeated from a different POV. Why did I do this? I suppose I could answer "to annoy idiots who cannot tell the difference and give spacebabies something new to whine about" but, in fact, it was for the sole purpose of allowing the reader to place TAL's sequence of events within the meta story. If you don't like that, or are seeing more repetition than is really there, don't read anymore because it's going to continue to some extent and thus I feel obligated to continue that "here's where this fits in the story" service for those who do prefer it.

[tomkr...@gmail.com]

Try counting the number of negative reviews of all books and matching that against the number I bother to notice. You will find that the fraction of notice to bad reviews existing is fairly small. You may also find a couple where I commended a one star reviewer for his honesty. If you look still deeper you may notice that it isn't one star reviews, nor two, that annoy me but ones that seem to me to be plainly dishonest. The classic one of these was for The Amazon Legion, where a reviewer took an argument I had refuted within the book, applied it as if I had not only not refuted it within the book but was central to my thesis for the book, refuted it himself (I think "him" but cannot be sure), but badly, ignorantly, and dishonestly (it's hard to get two and three in the same piece but he managed), and then acted as if he'd refuted the book. That annoyed the shit out of me. I have, as a matter of fact, told five star reviewers to take down their reviews (no, as far as I know they didn't listen) because their review was too wrong, dishonest, and stupid for me to want to count them among my fans.

[tomkr...@gmail.com]

Alternate history is one of the ways someone could read it. It's not the only way.

[tomkr...@gmail.com]

Just for one example, Moriarty, for my first published book, A State of Disobedience, there are currently some 31 one and two star reviews. I just looked to refresh my memory and found I had addressed one of them, thusly: "I seem to be getting a lot of comments from Sweden lately. Kind of strange... The short version, Linda, is that a science fiction publisher, Jim Baen, asked me to write up his idea, which was set very near future. It's not sci fi. It's social speculative fiction."

Perhaps you can find another that qualifies as "flaming." That one wouldn't seem to be it.

Conversely, there were three negative reviews, of 101, for CATT. I address two directly, yes. One review said merely "sucks," which is, I am sure you will agree, somewhat uninformative and possibly fraudulent. I answered that with "Po' baby, I feel bad for you." Well, ya know, he sounded _hurt_. Another I thanked, but I admit that was insincere. A third I didn't address at all, directly, but did comment to someone who commented on the review. If this seems excessive to you, I am afraid I cannot help your feelings on the matter.

[tomkr...@gmail.com]

_Armed_ forces. Maaaan...I should not write this early, not before having my coffee.

[tomkr...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 1:24:34 AM UTC-4, Moriarty wrote:

The other thing, Moriarty, is that that whole "Krapman" thing makes you sound like a kindergartener, which was, I think the first and last time I heard that, some 54-55 years ago. It is, of course, possible that you really _are_ a child, in years or in development, in which case you can ignore my suggestion of counting reviews as being perhaps a little beyond your abilities.

[Peter Trei]

Yeah, its childish. But you seem to have confirmed his first point:

" A quick look at the Amazon reviews shows Krapman (pt: sic) is still

flaming people for not liking his books. "

I don't read your books, and a one line 'snerk' from Moriarty which doesn't
even address their content isn't going to affect my opinion of you or your
work for good or ill. That he modified your name greatly detracted from
the level of trust I put in his opinion.

However, your chasing him here and responding (after 5 years absence from
the group) with no fewer than 6 posts in an hour *does* tell me something
about you, and not in a good way.

I hope your books are better than the public persona you're projecting here.

pt

[Scott Lurndal]

tomkr...@gmail.com writes:
>On Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 7:17:01 AM UTC-4, tomkr...@gmail.com wrote:

Tom, responding to himself, said:

>
>Conversely, there were three negative reviews, of 101, for CATT. I address=
> two directly, yes. One review said merely "sucks," which is, I am sure yo=

>u will agree, somewhat uninformative and possibly fraudulent.

An opinion is "possibly Fraudulent"?


> I answered t=

>hat with "Po' baby, I feel bad for you."

You are so kind.

[Robert Carnegie]

On Tuesday, 26 July 2016 14:02:46 UTC+1, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> tomkr...@gmail.com writes:
> >On Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 7:17:01 AM UTC-4, tomkr...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Tom, responding to himself, said:
>
> >
> >Conversely, there were three negative reviews, of 101, for CATT. I address=
> > two directly, yes. One review said merely "sucks," which is, I am sure yo=
> >u will agree, somewhat uninformative and possibly fraudulent.
>
> An opinion is "possibly Fraudulent"?

Robert chips in: if I was a sensitive author, I'd
console myself that that reviewer may have not even
read the book. In fact, I'd hope so. Even if
"215 readers found this useful."

> > I answered t=
> >hat with "Po' baby, I feel bad for you."
>
> You are so kind.

As for Alternative History: How many moons does the
world in the story have? If one, it's probably
alt-hist. (Or animal fantasy.) Two, we may be on
Mars... where the moons are a lot less impressive
in real life than when seen by John Carter (also,
in real life, you have concerns much more pressing
than counting of natural satellites).

[Dimensional Traveler]

Its not strictly alt-history. The setting is another world colonized by
humans in the future, but the setup has all the colonies form nations
that parallel Earth's nations.

[Quadibloc]

On Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 5:20:37 AM UTC-6, tomkr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 12:43:11 AM UTC-4, mcdow...@sky.com wrote:

> > In what sense is this alternate history?

(snip)

> Alternate history is one of the ways someone could read it. It's not the only way.

Interesting comment (by the author?).

While the events of the story are presumably all set in the future, such a story could still be classed as "alternate history" if something about that future was dependent on something in that future's past being *different* from what actually happened in real-world history...

up to the time when the book was actually written.

Without that last caveat, of course, "Last and First Men" and "Things to Come"
(and, for that matter, "The Man Who Sold the Moon") would be alternate history
- rather than simply science fiction overtaken by events.

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

On Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 8:31:48 AM UTC-6, Dimensional Traveler wrote:

> Its not strictly alt-history. The setting is another world colonized by
> humans in the future, but the setup has all the colonies form nations
> that parallel Earth's nations.

Now _that_ reminds me of the Honor Harrington books; with the various space
empires paralleling, as David Weber admitted, Britain (Manticore), France
(Haven), Germany (Andermann Empire), and Poland (Silesian Confederacy).

He doesn't admit that Solaria parallels - even if imperfectly, and in a
negative way - the United States, but that's obvious too.

Incidentally, in trying to refresh my memory on certain things, I visited

http://honorverse.wikia.com/wiki/Honor_Harrington

and the artwork reproduced there is the first time I've ever seen her supposed
half-Asian ancestry reflected in a representation of her.

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

On Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 7:01:04 AM UTC-6, Peter Trei wrote:

> I hope your books are better than the public persona you're projecting here.

Tom Kratman _is_ a controversial author.

Since his book "Caliphate" has been discussed in this newsgroup, you may know why.

I am... conflicted... about books like that.

For one thing, I am a Canadian, and thus this gives me a certain detachment
vis-a-vis the Bill of Rights.

I don't feel ashamed to question whether the Second Amendment is an appropriate
rule to follow in a society with large, anonymous cities.

As for the First Amendment, while I disagree with Canada's "hate literature"
laws as they stand, I would be inclined to consider, and perhaps support, laws
which left alone any attempt to present the case for any political viewpoint,
however distasteful to current sentiment, in a factual manner - but which would
permit works like, say, the movie "Jüd Suss" to be banned, as they incite
hatred by appeal to the emotions rather than the mind.

A consequence of that is that today's politically-correct elites would be
legally able, were they inclined to do so, to ban a book like "Caliphate".
(Despite our country's current broader laws, though, it has not been banned in
Canada, in case you're wondering.)

As I said, I'm conflicted.

Because, as people are aware from my own political postings here, I'm in a
basic agreement with the premise of the work.

While I accept that it *is* a fact that the vast majority of Muslims in Europe,
as in Canada and the United States, are innocent people and good citizens...

it is also true that:

- there are some terrorists among them;
- we have no magic way to tell who they are;
- they carry certain cultural and historical baggage that makes some of their children susceptible to radicalization; and
- they are, to a certain degree, subject to intimidation within their community that prevents the good majority from properly speaking out in a way sufficient to deprive the ideas that lead to terrorist acts of their legitimacy.

If one is *irrevocably and absolutely* committed to not rounding up and deporting a group living in your territory by race or religion - _no matter what_ - then Kratman's point in Caliphate, that you then are accepting as a consequence of that position some risk of exactly the sort of bleak future for your descendants as that book describes...

is absolutely correct.

Somebody had *better* make that point before it actually is too late.

But does that mean that Hitler was right?

I doubt Tom Kratman thinks so. With a name like Kratman, after all...

Of course, Hitler rounded up the Jews. Who we know as being model citizens who
have contributed far out of proportion to their numbers to the sciences and the
arts.

World War II, and its painful and tragic costs for American families,
discredited racism - and led directly to such things as the Voting Rights Act
of 1964.

Which, of course, is why Jesse Jackson's Presidential bid was torpedoed so rapidly after the Farrakhan debacle:

There are two kinds of white American.

The ones who are racist.

The ones who are not racist - and whose not being racist stemmed from the
horrors of the Holocaust. Thus, first they became super-sensitive to racism
against Jews, and then they also rejected racism against black people as a...
logical corollary.

And, thus, a candidate who is perceived even as being slightly "soft" on
anti-Semitism is even less likely to be considered an option by the
*non-racist* group of white Americans than, oh, say, David Duke.

But there's a difference between being wrong in fact, wrong in a particular
instance, and being wrong in theory.

And this brings to mind a recent post of mine in another newsgroup.

Someone quoted (with strong disapproval) Hitler:

(begin quote)
A lopsided education has helped to encourage that illusion. Man must realize
that a fundamental law of necessity reigns throughout the whole realm of Nature
and that his existence is subject to the law of eternal struggle and strife. He
will then feel that there cannot be a separate law for mankind in a world in
which planets and suns follow their orbits, where moons and planets trace their
destined paths, where the strong are always the masters of the weak and where
those subject to such laws must obey them or be destroyed.
(end quote)

but in service of an argument against "empiricism". (Basically, he believes
that scientists have utterly betrayed all that is good and decent by claiming
that he Earth rotates on its axis once every 23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4
seconds, instead of once every 24 hours, as is as obvious as day and night.)

And, thus, in the spirit of the old quote about "a lie that is half the truth
is a harder matter to fight" - Kipling wasn't the original source of it - I
wrote the following:

(begin quote)
I think that pretty much everyone agrees today that Hitler was wrong. About
*something*, at least. After all, it's pretty much agreed upon by everyone that
the Nazis were evil.

The Communists also had slave labor camps with cruel treatment of their
innocent prisoners - but some *respectable* people still try to apologize for
Communism to this day.

But _what_ was Hitler wrong about?

Was he wrong to say that the forces of natural selection apply to human beings
just as pitilessly as to animals?

No: but he was wrong about how we should _respond_ to that fact.

That is: while it is correct to acknowledge that the laws of nature do not
guarantee our survival, and thus we must indeed look out for that ourselves -
it is *also* correct that we should not do... more than is necessary... in that
regard. We should do what our intellect and technology gives us the power to
do, to provide for humanity a humane and just social order were the weak, the
ill, the disadvantaged are not ignored or pushed aside, but are helped to
survive as well.

Hitler's thinking, though almost universally repudiated, does still live on -
the news about a terrible knife rampage in Japan shows that.
(end quote)

John Savard

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
news:9b96cec6-2433-4d40...@googlegroups.com:

> While I accept that it *is* a fact that the vast majority of
> Muslims in Europe, as in Canada and the United States, are
> innocent people and good citizens...
>
> it is also true that:
>
> - there are some terrorists among them;

The same is true of Christians.

> - we have no magic way to tell who they are;

The sams is true of Christians.

> - they carry certain cultural and historical baggage that makes
> some of their children susceptible to radicalization;

The same is true of Christians.

> and - they
> are, to a certain degree, subject to intimidation within their
> community that prevents the good majority from properly speaking
> out in a way sufficient to deprive the ideas that lead to
> terrorist acts of their legitimacy.

The same is true of Christians.

But you don't mention rouding up Christians, or nuking white
people.

Your murderous impulses clearly have noting to do with religion,
extremism, or terrorist activicites. The only difference between
Christians and Muslims, in this context, is that one is white and
the other is brown.

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

[Scott Lurndal]

Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> writes:
>On Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 7:01:04 AM UTC-6, Peter Trei wrote:
>

>I don't feel ashamed to question whether the Second Amendment is an appropr=
>iate=20

>rule to follow in a society with large, anonymous cities.

A strict constructionist would interpret the second amendment
in the terms of the day, when "arms" were muzzle-loading
muskets, pikes and swords - not (semi)automatic rifles,
light-anti-tank weapons and rocket propelled grenades and where
'militia' was an organized group.

Even the NRA, prior to 1978, wasn't yet gun-nut-central and
concealed carry was illegal nationwide.

[David Johnston]

On 7/26/2016 12:56 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> writes:
>> On Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 7:01:04 AM UTC-6, Peter Trei wrote:
>>
>
>> I don't feel ashamed to question whether the Second Amendment is an appropr=
>> iate=20
>> rule to follow in a society with large, anonymous cities.
>
> A strict constructionist would interpret the second amendment
> in the terms of the day, when "arms" were muzzle-loading
> muskets, pikes and swords - not (semi)automatic rifles,
> light-anti-tank weapons and rocket propelled grenades and where
> 'militia' was an organized group.

<snort> Nonsense. The point of being a strict constructionist is go by
the words with a minimum of interpretation. The words didn't say
"muskets". And while they did say "militia" they didn't say "as part of
a militia">

[Scott Lurndal]

David Johnston <Davidjo...@yahoo.com> writes:
>On 7/26/2016 12:56 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> writes:
>>> On Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 7:01:04 AM UTC-6, Peter Trei wrote:
>>>
>>
>>> I don't feel ashamed to question whether the Second Amendment is an appropr=
>>> iate=20
>>> rule to follow in a society with large, anonymous cities.
>>
>> A strict constructionist would interpret the second amendment
>> in the terms of the day, when "arms" were muzzle-loading
>> muskets, pikes and swords - not (semi)automatic rifles,
>> light-anti-tank weapons and rocket propelled grenades and where
>> 'militia' was an organized group.
>
><snort> Nonsense. The point of being a strict constructionist is go by
>the words with a minimum of interpretation. The words didn't say
>"muskets". And while they did say "militia" they didn't say "as part of
>a militia">
>

What did 'arms' mean in 1780?

[Quadibloc]

On Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 12:56:39 PM UTC-6, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> and where
> 'militia' was an organized group.

The Second Amendment states:

"A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the
right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Thus, what that amendment directs is that the right of the people to keep and
bear arms shall not be infringed.

The reason it directs this is in order to facilitate the existence of a
well-regulated militia, which is claimed to be desirable because it is
essential to the security of a free State.

So, since the militia is part of the reason, and not part of the command
itself, to claim that the Second Amendment only allows people to keep and bear
arms if they belong to a militia which their state has organized - or if they
belong to the U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, or National Guard - is to
ignore the rules of English grammar.

Of course, one *can* argue that lots of countries with strict gun controls
still have functioning militaries, and so one can't just deduce the meaning of
the Second Amendment by grammar alone; one also has to see if the semantics of
a proposed interpretation make sense.

But *then*, if we get down to the nitty-gritty, there is a meaning here which
still differs from the favored interpretation of some liberals, even if
conservatives who support private gun ownership would also be less than
enthusiastic about full adoption of that interpretation.

Apparently, the Founding Fathers seemed to envisage an America that would
defend itself in the same way that Muammar Qaddafi's Libya claimed to defend
itself - no standing armies for them, but rather a People's Militia!

And, presumably, a People's Militia wouldn't have time for stuff like Basic
Training, and so the people would have to already be accustomed to guns, using
them to go out and hunt gophers or something.

A right to own guns so that honest citizens can defend themselves from
criminals does not work well in practice: more of them die from accidents than
from criminals; most honest citizens will feel no need of a gun, and so more
liberal gun-ownership rules end up having as their chief result making it
easier for criminals to get guns.

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

On Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 5:09:23 AM UTC-6, tomkr...@gmail.com wrote:

> Assuming so, "rehash" is the wrong word. Amazon Legion takes place as a parallel story to the main story arc. It's operationally important to that, while being a real world caution against what was obviously about to become an exercise in cutting the arms forces hearts out on the altar of progrssivism.

> Because of that parallel aspect, there are a few places in other volumes - I don't really recall how many so let's call it half a dozen - where a usually minor scene is essentially repeated from a different POV. Why did I do this?

Oh, well. In that case, you should not be blamed for repeating yourself, unless
we want to denounce Anne McCaffrey for imposing on her readers by inflicting
the Harper Hall trilogy on them.

John Savard

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

David Johnston <Davidjo...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:nn8cll$jsr$1...@dont-email.me:

> On 7/26/2016 12:56 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> writes:
>>> On Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 7:01:04 AM UTC-6, Peter Trei
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>
>>> I don't feel ashamed to question whether the Second Amendment
>>> is an appropr= iate=20
>>> rule to follow in a society with large, anonymous cities.
>>
>> A strict constructionist would interpret the second amendment
>> in the terms of the day, when "arms" were muzzle-loading
>> muskets, pikes and swords - not (semi)automatic rifles,
>> light-anti-tank weapons and rocket propelled grenades and where
>> 'militia' was an organized group.
>
> <snort> Nonsense. The point of being a strict constructionist
> is go by the words with a minimum of interpretation. The words
> didn't say "muskets". And while they did say "militia" they
> didn't say "as part of a militia">
>

If one reads the extensive writings of the people who wrote, and
ratified, the bill of rights, one finds that the intent of the 2nd
amendment was that weaponry of current military design was to be
available to private citizens. In other words, not just automatic
weapons of today, but artillery, tanks, jet fighters, all fully
armed and operational. An internally consistent argument could be
made that the end of the 2nd amendment would allow private citizens
of today to build their own nuclear weapons.

We live in a different world than the framers of the constitution.
The bulk of the military is no longer organized, and funded, by
private citizens. (In fact, the mere existiance of a government
funded professional army is in conflict with the intent of the
framers. They were terrified of such.)

But one does get the strong impression that their intent,
throughout the bill of rights, was that the government not be
allowed to restrict the activities of the citizenry without a very
comprelling reason, and there's no compelling reason to restrict
legal access to guns for the law-abiding citizenry. There simply
isn't any positive value to doing so.

[tomkr...@gmail.com]

Look carefully at sequence of events. You may note that I commented to him last. This would tend to refute the notion of chasing him anywhere. Glad I could clear that up for you.

[tomkr...@gmail.com]

I thought I was being rather kind, yes.

Also, yes, I would say an opinion purporting to be on something that isn't obviously based on that something may _possibly_ be fraudulent. Not legal / criminal fraud, mind you, but fraudulent all the same.

[tomkr...@gmail.com]

Three moons. One incident similar to one we experienced. The point of departure was killing the wrong man's family.

[tomkr...@gmail.com]

Close to all, but there is at least one state on Earth that is expressly (IIRC; it is certainly, at least, implied) not given an area to colonize, while there may be colonies that disappeared via conquest, and others that appeared via secession / rebellion. Haven't had to discuss any of them, so far, but the door is open.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
news:6e6d4d3d-6a96-4550...@googlegroups.com:

> On Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 12:56:39 PM UTC-6, Scott Lurndal
> wrote:
>> and where
>> 'militia' was an organized group.
>
> The Second Amendment states:
>
> "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a
> free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall
> not be infringed."
>
> Thus, what that amendment directs is that the right of the
> people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
>
> The reason it directs this is in order to facilitate the
> existence of a well-regulated militia, which is claimed to be
> desirable because it is essential to the security of a free
> State.

A) that is offered as an example, but more important

B) the milita referred to, _according to the people who wrote it_,
is the unorganized militar, defined in the US Code _by the people
who wrote the 2nd amendment as all able bodied adult males between
the ages of 18 and 45 (and now defined rather more extensively).

The big debate in Congress over the Militia Act of 1794 - _by the
people who wrote the 2nd amendment_ - was whether or not the 2nd
amendment actually *required* the federal government to *provide*
weapons of current military design to *everyone* covered by the
unorganized milita, if they couldn't afford to buy one on their
own.

>
> So, since the militia is part of the reason, and not part of the
> command itself, to claim that the Second Amendment only allows
> people to keep and bear arms if they belong to a militia which
> their state has organized - or if they belong to the U.S. Army,
> Navy, Air Force, Marines, or National Guard - is to ignore the
> rules of English grammar.

It is also to ignore some pretty extensive writings on the part of
the people _who wrote the 2nd amendment_.

>
> A right to own guns so that honest citizens can defend
> themselves from criminals does not work well in practice:

100% of all credible research says you are full of shit.

> more
> of them die from accidents than from criminals;

Factually untrue. Accidental gun deaths are at least two orders of
magnitude lower than crminal gun deaths.

> most honest
> citizens will feel no need of a gun,

Most honest citizens will feel no need for a television, or a
computer, but you aren't advocating banning those. The criteria for
a ban is not the lack of a need on the part of the citizenry, it is
the positive need for the ban on the part of society as a whole.

> and so more liberal
> gun-ownership rules end up having as their chief result making
> it easier for criminals to get guns.
>

That is meaningful only if you deny the right of effective self
defense. It is provable that gun bans have more effect on the law-
abiding than on the criminal, and guns are used between two and ten
times as often for legitimate self defense than to commit crimes.
This isn't new or obscure knowledge. To advocate gun bans is to
advocate making legal self defense more difficult, if not
impossible.

"Gun control is the premise that a woman found raped, beaten and
stranged with her own pantyhose is morally superior to that same
woman explaining to the police how her attacker got those bullet
holes in his chest."

Do you believe in the right to self defense? That is the _only_
question. Everything else is well established with decades of
research.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

tomkr...@gmail.com wrote in
news:24a04e10-e4ff-419e...@googlegroups.com:

Your behavior is that of a poorly socialized, petulant child whose
little brother won't let him play with a toy he doesn't like
anyway.

That's not the reason I don't read you books. The only author I
refuse to read because if the authors non-book behavior is Orson
Scott Card.

The reason I don't read your books is that they look like purile
crap, and there aren't enough hours in the day to read everything
that looks good.

[tomkr...@gmail.com]

A _little_ different. It's just one world, one that was set up, so it appears, by some aliens about whom we know essentially nothing but whom we call "Noahs," to be a planetary zoo or hunting preserve for animals from Earth from about 500000 to five million years past. It also contains some non-earth life, apparently genengineered to prevent the rise of intelligent life, notable among these being tranzitrees, progressivines, and bolshiberries (those are the English names for three of them, one name, the latter, probably having been coined by Australian colonists. It is laid out a lot like ours, almost certainly artificially. Why make it like ours? I didn't actually intend to, initially, but some fan sent me an article on the rise of the Panamanian Isthmus, the effect that had on weather, and how that effect may well have led to all of us. Weather, thus, being important to reproduction, evolution (or non-evolution) and quite possibly health, and itself dependent on the shape of the planetary surface, I was rather stuck with having the aliens who created the preserve also create similar weather, which further required a similar surface.

[tomkr...@gmail.com]

Yes, my great grandfather, having gotten only one son out, went to the all expense paid tour of the camps along with his wife and, so I understand, rather large family. Only he survived. Mother described to me once trying to take him on the subway in Boston. He began to panic and cry, poor old thing, because the last time he'd gotten on a train...

Hence, yes, the overwhelming part of 1/4 of my gene pool went up in smoke. Grandfather married a Shikse, as did my late father. I was raised RC and am still RC, even if annoyed - to the point of no longer going to mass - at my local parish church for encouraging what I consider suicidal outlooks and behavior.

[tomkr...@gmail.com]

No more than, as the Court has observed, we restrict the First Amendment to voice and hand powered printing presses, leaving the federal government with authority to suppress TV, Radio, DVD, Internet, and magazine printed on high speed presses, at will.

[tomkr...@gmail.com]

The same is probably true. The percentages are different and who is acting, hence who is at risk, is also different. Thus, your principled argument is true, but the tactical one is misleading.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

tomkr...@gmail.com wrote in
news:188552e8-1533-4f23...@googlegroups.com:

To pretend the United States does not have religious (Christian)
motivated domestic terrorists, while demanding genocide against
other religions even though the overwhelming majority of them have
no hostile intention is dishonest. And stupid.

From your online reputation, however, the one thing it is not, is
surprising.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

tomkr...@gmail.com wrote in
news:a8bfba6a-c102-49f8...@googlegroups.com:

At will? Heh. I didn't realize you were a comedian.

[tomkr...@gmail.com]

It occurred to me that there is one other place where there's a repeat. That's where a scene - though not an especially long one - from CATT appears in TLE. It's at the very end and serves mostly as bait. Well...bait and promise: "Yes, gentle reader, the terror and slaughter you have every right to expect from me IS coming. Soon."

[tomkr...@gmail.com]

Terry, you dick licking sack of maggot infested dog shit, you posturing simulacrum of a morally, mentally, and physically crippled sociopath, you fucking coward, who the fuck CARES what you read and don't?

Now shut up and sit down, little boy, adults are talking.

[tomkr...@gmail.com]

Po’ Terry Austin is all spite and hate.
He wants to matter, but now it’s too late.
He lives on USENET, ‘t’sall he can afford,
Since he can’t leave from his own psycho ward.

He bought a hooker, the scuzziest kind,
(Each time he got fucked Terry earned a dime.)
He had to have her, no matter the price.
She took his money and then said, “No dice.”

It’s hard to handle that rejection pain,
So Terry tried hard to earn USENET fame.
But po’ li’l Terry, though he tried so hard,
Could never quite get past the playschool yard.

Lucky he can hide where we won’t see him cry.
(Po’ Terry, po’ fool)
He’s a loser all right; he just doesn’t know why.
Life’s been hard on po’ Terrae.

[tomkr...@gmail.com]

When crippled pussy
Has verbal diarhea
His name is Austin

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

tomkr...@gmail.com wrote in
news:4351db65-b11d-44b6...@googlegroups.com:

I know you are, but what am I?

> who the fuck CARES what
> you read and don't?

You, apparently. Since you are not literally spitting on your
monitor, you're so worked up.

>
> Now shut up and sit down, little boy, adults are talking.
>

Welcome to my world, Tommy-boy. You're gonna be *fun*.

[tomkr...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 4:29:52 PM UTC-4, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:

If Edgar Allan Poe had written about Terry Austin

Hear the whining of the troll,
Crippled troll,
Bellowing his hatred of the people that are whole.
How he rages, rages, rages
In a mind that’s dark as night.
And the only bit of bright to
Pierce the cobwebs of that foul mind
Is his monitor’s own light.
Hear him whine, whine, whine
His pathetic little lines:
“You must answer,” “you’re my bitch now;” his illusion of control
From the troll, troll, troll, troll,
Troll, so droll
From the screaming-for-attention, bitter troll.

[tomkr...@gmail.com]

We've done this before Terry. You may recall your actually taking up the defensive. Or perhaps you don't really. No matter.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

tomkr...@gmail.com wrote in
news:1b4c0fbe-b978-4b4e...@googlegroups.com:

Ooooh, now you're posting incomprehensible garbate like Brian. You
a Microsoftie, too? Posting with smart-quotes and shit?

Or were you just masturbating too hard while trying to type that
out?

And if your writing is like your poetry, I clearly made the right
decision to skip it. I've seen better poetry writton in dog urine
on the side of a fire hydrant.

[tomkr...@gmail.com]

People seem afraid of you. I've never understood why; you're just a coward with a computer.

[tomkr...@gmail.com]

O Terrie Austin, you are a loser.
Away, you trollin’ dipshit.
O Terrie Austin, you are a failure.
Away, you’re locked away,
Behind the barred windows.

You’ve not had pussy, since pussy had you.
Away, you trollin’ dipshit.
No girl could stand to be seen with you.
Away, you’re locked away
With the other losers.

As people went to work this morning
Away, you trollin’ dipshit.
In their minds they laughed and sang about you.
Away, you’re locked away. (or “About po’ Terrie A”
Behind the barred windows.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

tomkr...@gmail.com wrote in
news:bcfa8f78-a4cc-460e...@googlegroups.com:

Ladies and gentlement, let me introduce you to my new bitch: Little
Tommy Crapman (and his little tiny Tommy), writer and poet
extraordianre. Extraordinarily *bad*, but extraordinarie,
nonetheless.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

tomkr...@gmail.com wrote in
news:60b666c4-47ce-4b46...@googlegroups.com:

Possibly. It's hard to keep track of the fish when they won't wear
their name tags.

> You may recall your actually
> taking up the defensive. Or perhaps you don't really.

Feel free to provide a MessageID on that, if you can find one. Or
not. We both know you can't.

> No
> matter.
>
You do not, in fact, matter.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

tomkr...@gmail.com wrote in
news:6b1d859f-4dd6-4ff8...@googlegroups.com:

(Dude, are you as obsessed with me as Alan, sitting there just
constantly clicking on Refresh, hoping and praying that there will
be a new message from me to reply to? It makes you look sad, lonely
and pathetic. Which is, of course, you look.)

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Multiple replies to the same message, now? Man, you are *sad*. I
*really* got under your skins, didn't I?

You're gonna be *fun*.

tomkr...@gmail.com wrote in
news:886b21e5-9d24-48db...@googlegroups.com:

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

tomkr...@gmail.com wrote in
news:eea080cf-7974-440c...@googlegroups.com:

I know you are, but what am I?

[Peter Trei]

On Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 5:23:14 PM UTC-4, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
> tomkr...@gmail.com wrote

[whatever]

sigh - another namecalling match.

pt

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Peter Trei <pete...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:d6a8f8ca-4878-42f3...@googlegroups.com:

His ass will be hurting soon enough, it won't last long. The boy
doesn't have the staying power.

[Quadibloc]

On Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 2:26:43 PM UTC-6, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:

> Do you believe in the right to self defense? That is the _only_
> question. Everything else is well established with decades of
> research.

I do believe in the right of self-defence, and I am aware of some research that
shows that certain types of law making it easier for ordinary citizens to have
guns decreases crime. Under some circumstances, I'm sure that is the case, but
it's not as if one can do controlled experiments - different regions of the
United States have clearly different circumstances in this area. So I'm not
willing to accept a firm conclusion, but I am presenting what seem to me to be
valid generalizations.

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

On Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 2:39:18 PM UTC-6, Tom Kratman wrote:

> Hence, yes, the overwhelming part of 1/4 of my gene pool went up in smoke. Grandfather married a Shikse, as did my late father. I was raised RC and am still RC, even if annoyed - to the point of no longer going to mass - at my local parish church for encouraging what I consider suicidal outlooks and behavior.

I was raised a Roman Catholic too, at least in my earliest youth.

However, when I was a student in Grade 1 or maybe Grade 2, I noticed that in my
religion classes, the teacher was presenting as fact statements which were, in
fact, controversial, rather than being the universal consensus - like what I
learned in arithmetic class, that 2 + 2 = 4, and not 5. (Of course, I didn't
think about the idea in such big words at the time.)

Since then, I've been an atheist.

However, Richard Dawkins would not accept me as a "bright". I believe that
human consciousness is a real and meaningful phenomenon - and it is something
that our current scientific understanding can't begin to explain, because
there's nothing in it that comes to grips with it.

Having an M. Sc. degree in Physics, and thus taken some courses in quantum
mechanics, I know better than to use handwaving about that to find wiggle room
for the soul - no, the explanation for human consciousness is something we
haven't seen yet, and even though I expect it not to be "supernatural" in the
strict sense, I expect it to have some of the properties we associate with the
supernatural.

John Savard

[Moriarty]

On Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 11:01:04 PM UTC+10, Peter Trei wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 7:55:07 AM UTC-4, tomkr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 1:24:34 AM UTC-4, Moriarty wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 4:27:09 AM UTC+10, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> > > > _Come and Take Them (Carerra)_ by Tom Kratman
> > > > https://www.amazon.com/Come-Take-Them-Carerra-Kratman/dp/1476780420/
> > >

> > > Snerk. A quick look at the Amazon reviews shows Krapman is still flaming people for not liking his books.

<snip>

> > The other thing, Moriarty, is that that whole "Krapman" thing makes you sound like a kindergartener, which was, I think the first and last time I heard that, some 54-55 years ago. It is, of course, possible that you really _are_ a child, in years or in development, in which case you can ignore my suggestion of counting reviews as being perhaps a little beyond your abilities.
>
> Yeah, its childish. But you seem to have confirmed his first point:
>
> " A quick look at the Amazon reviews shows Krapman (pt: sic) is still
> flaming people for not liking his books. "
>
> I don't read your books, and a one line 'snerk' from Moriarty which doesn't
> even address their content isn't going to affect my opinion of you or your
> work for good or ill. That he modified your name greatly detracted from
> the level of trust I put in his opinion.

That's your right of course! Detract away.

>
> However, your chasing him here and responding (after 5 years absence from
> the group) with no fewer than 6 posts in an hour *does* tell me something
> about you, and not in a good way.
>
> I hope your books are better than the public persona you're projecting here.

He's getting into a troll war with Terry. That should tell you how stupid he really is.

-Moriarty

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
news:133da591-6cec-44e3...@googlegroups.com:

Unfortunately, you are full of shit, and swallowing outright
propganda. Since you snipped out all context (showing you know you're
full of shit, and can't answer the point I actually made, I'll repeat
it:

Restricting legal access to guns has more of an effect on the law-
abiding than it does on criminals. This is well supported (and
obvious) in the research. Guns are used at least twice (as as much as
ten times) as often for legitimate self defense as to commit crimes.
This is also supported by 100% of the credible research. The location
makes zero difference. It is true _everywhere_. You can dance around
that, or snip it out, all you want, you still can't refute it.

The only rationale (other than a disconnect from reality so severe as
to constitute mental illness) for banning guns is to make legal self
defense more difficult, or impossible.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
news:cca8c3f6-ccde-4189...@googlegroups.com:


> Richard Dawkins

is a religious extremist loon, blinded by his hatred of competing
faiths. He's one of the few worshippers of scientism more extreme
(and more offensive) than Neil theAss Tyson.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Moriarty <blu...@ivillage.com> wrote in
news:bd27e06f-f14e-4725...@googlegroups.com:

Either it was time for Mummy to feed him supper, or he's gotten
bored already. I'm disappointed. I was looking forward to a new
chew toy.

[Greg Goss]

Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>On Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 5:20:37 AM UTC-6, tomkr...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 12:43:11 AM UTC-4, mcdow...@sky.com wrote:
>
>> > In what sense is this alternate history?
>(snip)
>
>> Alternate history is one of the ways someone could read it. It's not the only way.
>
>Interesting comment (by the author?).
>
>While the events of the story are presumably all set in the future, such a story could still be classed as "alternate history" if something about that future was dependent on something in that future's past being *different* from what actually happened in real-world history...
>
>up to the time when the book was actually written.
>
>Without that last caveat, of course, "Last and First Men" and "Things to Come"
>(and, for that matter, "The Man Who Sold the Moon") would be alternate history
>- rather than simply science fiction overtaken by events.

I liked the point where The Number of the Beast visited a universe
where a Carter was president of the US, rather than Kennedy, Kennedy,
Kennedy, etc. In other words *WE* are an alt-hist. Somewhere in
their travels, they met someone who had read part 1 of their story in
a magazine once.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.

[Ted Nolan <tednolan>]

In article <dvqi9t...@mid.individual.net>,

Goes back at least to Nourse.
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

[hamis...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 11:49:53 AM UTC+10, Greg Goss wrote:

> I liked the point where The Number of the Beast visited a universe
> where a Carter was president of the US, rather than Kennedy, Kennedy,
> Kennedy, etc. In other words *WE* are an alt-hist.

That was a natural consequence of the World as a Myth idea.

> Somewhere in
> their travels, they met someone who had read part 1 of their story in
> a magazine once.

Lazarus Long.

[Cryptoengineer]

Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote in
news:dvqi9t...@mid.individual.net:

[small detail which doesn't rise to the level of a spoiler]
ISTR this also occurs in Job: A Comedy of Justice; the protag visits a
world where he is astonished that *everyone* obeys unmanned traffic
lights; how could a VIP get waved through?

pt

[Lynn McGuire]

On 7/25/2016 7:03 PM, hamis...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 6:02:57 AM UTC+10, Dimensional Traveler wrote:

>> On 7/25/2016 11:27 AM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>> Book number five in a series of six books

>> I've been reading this series. There may be only six published to date
>> but there are at least three more in the pipeline for it. As for where
>> its heading, I'd say a global war.
>>
> Lynn always seems to write "of a x book series" when what he means is "x books have been released so far"

Books are not part of a series until they are actually released OR in the pipeline. I am still waiting for David Gerrold to release
books five, six, and seven of his infamous series about alien invasion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_War_Against_the_Chtorr

Lynn

[Lynn McGuire]

On 7/26/2016 3:05 PM, Quadibloc wrote:

> On Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 12:56:39 PM UTC-6, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> and where
>> 'militia' was an organized group.
>

> The Second Amendment states:
>
> "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the
> right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
>
> Thus, what that amendment directs is that the right of the people to keep and
> bear arms shall not be infringed.
>
> The reason it directs this is in order to facilitate the existence of a
> well-regulated militia, which is claimed to be desirable because it is
> essential to the security of a free State.
>
> So, since the militia is part of the reason, and not part of the command
> itself, to claim that the Second Amendment only allows people to keep and bear
> arms if they belong to a militia which their state has organized - or if they
> belong to the U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, or National Guard - is to
> ignore the rules of English grammar.
>
> Of course, one *can* argue that lots of countries with strict gun controls
> still have functioning militaries, and so one can't just deduce the meaning of
> the Second Amendment by grammar alone; one also has to see if the semantics of
> a proposed interpretation make sense.
>
> But *then*, if we get down to the nitty-gritty, there is a meaning here which
> still differs from the favored interpretation of some liberals, even if
> conservatives who support private gun ownership would also be less than
> enthusiastic about full adoption of that interpretation.
>
> Apparently, the Founding Fathers seemed to envisage an America that would
> defend itself in the same way that Muammar Qaddafi's Libya claimed to defend
> itself - no standing armies for them, but rather a People's Militia!
>
> And, presumably, a People's Militia wouldn't have time for stuff like Basic
> Training, and so the people would have to already be accustomed to guns, using
> them to go out and hunt gophers or something.
>
> A right to own guns so that honest citizens can defend themselves from
> criminals does not work well in practice: more of them die from accidents than
> from criminals; most honest citizens will feel no need of a gun, and so more
> liberal gun-ownership rules end up having as their chief result making it
> easier for criminals to get guns.
>
> John Savard

Why are you such a snowflake ?

Lynn

[J. Clarke]

In article <FnOlz.10275$5h2....@fx14.iad>, sc...@slp53.sl.home says...

>
> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> writes:
> >On Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 7:01:04 AM UTC-6, Peter Trei wrote:
> >
>
> >I don't feel ashamed to question whether the Second Amendment is an appropr=
> >iate=20
> >rule to follow in a society with large, anonymous cities.
>
> A strict constructionist would interpret the second amendment
> in the terms of the day, when "arms" were muzzle-loading
> muskets, pikes and swords - not (semi)automatic rifles,

> light-anti-tank weapons and rocket propelled grenades and where

> 'militia' was an organized group.

And warships and cannon and grenades, among other things that you
neglect in your effort to pretend that dangerous weapons are a late 20th
century innovation,.

> Even the NRA, prior to 1978, wasn't yet gun-nut-central and
> concealed carry was illegal nationwide.

Except in the many places where it wasn't, like New York.

[Lynn McGuire]

On 7/26/2016 6:09 AM, tomkr...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Monday, July 25, 2016 at 2:27:09 PM UTC-4, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>> _Come and Take Them (Carerra)_ by Tom Kratman
>> https://www.amazon.com/Come-Take-Them-Carerra-Kratman/dp/1476780420/
>>

>> Book number five in a series of six books of alternate history military science fiction. Published in MMPB. I own the sixth book

>> and plan to read it soon.
>>

>> Kind of a rehash of the fourth book in the series. I am not sure where we are going here and am starting to lose interest.

>>
>> My rating: 3.8 out of 5 stars

>> Amazon rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars (100 reviews)
>>
>> Lynn
>
> Hmmm...without knowing which one you mean as "fourth book," Amazon Legion or Lotus Eaters, it's hard to address this. I suspect you don't mean Lotus Eaters because (spoiler warning) a coup and a massive drug raid do not a nationwide ambush equal. So I think you must mean Amazon Legion.
>
> Assuming so, "rehash" is the wrong word. Amazon Legion takes place as a parallel story to the main story arc. It's operationally important to that, while being a real world caution against what was obviously about to become an exercise in cutting the arms forces hearts out on the altar of progrssivism.
>
> Because of that parallel aspect, there are a few places in other volumes - I don't really recall how many so let's call it half a dozen - where a usually minor scene is essentially repeated from a different POV. Why did I do this? I suppose I could answer "to annoy idiots who cannot tell the difference and give spacebabies something new to whine about" but, in fact, it was for the sole purpose of allowing the reader to place TAL's sequence of events within the meta story. If you don't like that, or are seeing more repetition than is really there, don't read anymore because it's going to continue to some extent and thus I feel obligated to continue that "here's where this fits in the story" service for those who do prefer it.

Yes, I meant _Amazon Legion_. Is _Amazon Legion_ not the fourth book in the series ?

And rehash is probably too strong. _Come and Take Them_ is definitely a new POV (and much more action) than _Amazon Legion_.

And the sixth book, _The Rods and the Axe_, has been moved out of my SBR (strategic book reserve) and staged onto my nightstand. But
I just started reading the first Jack Reacher book and may get sidetracked for quite a while.

Is it true that there are three more books planned for the series ?

Lynn

[Lynn McGuire]

On 7/26/2016 12:24 AM, Moriarty wrote:

> On Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 4:27:09 AM UTC+10, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>> _Come and Take Them (Carerra)_ by Tom Kratman
>> https://www.amazon.com/Come-Take-Them-Carerra-Kratman/dp/1476780420/
>

> Snerk. A quick look at the Amazon reviews shows Krapman is still flaming people for not liking his books.

>
>> Book number five in a series of six books of alternate history military science fiction. Published in MMPB. I own the sixth book
>> and plan to read it soon.
>>
>> Kind of a rehash of the fourth book in the series. I am not sure where we are going here and am starting to lose interest.
>>
>> My rating: 3.8 out of 5 stars
>

> Is there any reason you go the extra decimal place in a 5 star rating system?
>
> -Moriarty

Why not ? I still felt that the book was above average on a five star basis. I just dropped a little off that fourth star because I
kept on getting the feeling that I had been here before.

I also mark some books as 4.4 stars on a five star basis when I really liked them but could not go five stars.

After all, anything below four stars is crap:
https://xkcd.com/1098/

Lynn

[lal_truckee]

On 7/26/16 12:35 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> What did 'arms' mean in 1780?
It's a premonition based amendment.
The Fore-Father's foresight permitted them to anticipate Leopold II and,
wishing to assure the citizens that the government wasn't going to
remove their arms, but rather a citizen would have the right to "keep
and bare" their arms.

[Lynn McGuire]

On 7/26/2016 12:59 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 7:01:04 AM UTC-6, Peter Trei wrote:
>

>> I hope your books are better than the public persona you're projecting here.
>

> Tom Kratman _is_ a controversial author.
>
> Since his book "Caliphate" has been discussed in this newsgroup, you may know why.
>
> I am... conflicted... about books like that.
>
> For one thing, I am a Canadian, and thus this gives me a certain detachment
> vis-a-vis the Bill of Rights.
>
> I don't feel ashamed to question whether the Second Amendment is an appropriate

> rule to follow in a society with large, anonymous cities.
>

> As for the First Amendment, while I disagree with Canada's "hate literature"
> laws as they stand, I would be inclined to consider, and perhaps support, laws
> which left alone any attempt to present the case for any political viewpoint,
> however distasteful to current sentiment, in a factual manner - but which would
> permit works like, say, the movie "Jüd Suss" to be banned, as they incite
> hatred by appeal to the emotions rather than the mind.
>
> A consequence of that is that today's politically-correct elites would be
> legally able, were they inclined to do so, to ban a book like "Caliphate".
> (Despite our country's current broader laws, though, it has not been banned in
> Canada, in case you're wondering.)
>
> As I said, I'm conflicted.
>
> Because, as people are aware from my own political postings here, I'm in a
> basic agreement with the premise of the work.

>
> While I accept that it *is* a fact that the vast majority of Muslims in Europe,
> as in Canada and the United States, are innocent people and good citizens...
>
> it is also true that:
>
> - there are some terrorists among them;

> - we have no magic way to tell who they are;

> - they carry certain cultural and historical baggage that makes some of their children susceptible to radicalization; and

> - they are, to a certain degree, subject to intimidation within their community that prevents the good majority from properly speaking out in a way sufficient to deprive the ideas that lead to terrorist acts of their legitimacy.
>

> If one is *irrevocably and absolutely* committed to not rounding up and deporting a group living in your territory by race or religion - _no matter what_ - then Kratman's point in Caliphate, that you then are accepting as a consequence of that position some risk of exactly the sort of bleak future for your descendants as that book describes...
>
> is absolutely correct.
>
> Somebody had *better* make that point before it actually is too late.
>
> But does that mean that Hitler was right?
>
> I doubt Tom Kratman thinks so. With a name like Kratman, after all...
>
> Of course, Hitler rounded up the Jews. Who we know as being model citizens who
> have contributed far out of proportion to their numbers to the sciences and the
> arts.
>
> World War II, and its painful and tragic costs for American families,
> discredited racism - and led directly to such things as the Voting Rights Act
> of 1964.
>
> Which, of course, is why Jesse Jackson's Presidential bid was torpedoed so rapidly after the Farrakhan debacle:
>
> There are two kinds of white American.
>
> The ones who are racist.
>
> The ones who are not racist - and whose not being racist stemmed from the
> horrors of the Holocaust. Thus, first they became super-sensitive to racism
> against Jews, and then they also rejected racism against black people as a...
> logical corollary.
>
> And, thus, a candidate who is perceived even as being slightly "soft" on
> anti-Semitism is even less likely to be considered an option by the
> *non-racist* group of white Americans than, oh, say, David Duke.
>
> But there's a difference between being wrong in fact, wrong in a particular
> instance, and being wrong in theory.
>
> And this brings to mind a recent post of mine in another newsgroup.
>
> Someone quoted (with strong disapproval) Hitler:
>
> (begin quote)
> A lopsided education has helped to encourage that illusion. Man must realize
> that a fundamental law of necessity reigns throughout the whole realm of Nature
> and that his existence is subject to the law of eternal struggle and strife. He
> will then feel that there cannot be a separate law for mankind in a world in
> which planets and suns follow their orbits, where moons and planets trace their
> destined paths, where the strong are always the masters of the weak and where
> those subject to such laws must obey them or be destroyed.
> (end quote)
>
> but in service of an argument against "empiricism". (Basically, he believes
> that scientists have utterly betrayed all that is good and decent by claiming
> that he Earth rotates on its axis once every 23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4
> seconds, instead of once every 24 hours, as is as obvious as day and night.)
>
> And, thus, in the spirit of the old quote about "a lie that is half the truth
> is a harder matter to fight" - Kipling wasn't the original source of it - I
> wrote the following:
>
> (begin quote)
> I think that pretty much everyone agrees today that Hitler was wrong. About
> *something*, at least. After all, it's pretty much agreed upon by everyone that
> the Nazis were evil.
>
> The Communists also had slave labor camps with cruel treatment of their
> innocent prisoners - but some *respectable* people still try to apologize for
> Communism to this day.
>
> But _what_ was Hitler wrong about?
>
> Was he wrong to say that the forces of natural selection apply to human beings
> just as pitilessly as to animals?
>
> No: but he was wrong about how we should _respond_ to that fact.
>
> That is: while it is correct to acknowledge that the laws of nature do not
> guarantee our survival, and thus we must indeed look out for that ourselves -
> it is *also* correct that we should not do... more than is necessary... in that
> regard. We should do what our intellect and technology gives us the power to
> do, to provide for humanity a humane and just social order were the weak, the
> ill, the disadvantaged are not ignored or pushed aside, but are helped to
> survive as well.
>
> Hitler's thinking, though almost universally repudiated, does still live on -
> the news about a terrible knife rampage in Japan shows that.
> (end quote)
>
> John Savard

Wow.

BTW, as far as the Jews go, they are not perfect either. You might want to go read about the King David Hotel bombing.

Lynn

[J. Clarke]

In article <6e6d4d3d-6a96-4550...@googlegroups.com>,
jsa...@ecn.ab.ca says...

>
> On Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 12:56:39 PM UTC-6, Scott Lurndal wrote:

> > and where
> > 'militia' was an organized group.
>

The individual right ship has sailed Quadi. The Supreme Court has
ruled, it _is_ an individual right, there is no purpose served by
further discussion of that point.

[David Johnston]

On 7/26/2016 1:35 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> David Johnston <Davidjo...@yahoo.com> writes:

>> On 7/26/2016 12:56 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> writes:

>>>> On Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 7:01:04 AM UTC-6, Peter Trei wrote:
>>>>
>>>

>>>> I don't feel ashamed to question whether the Second Amendment is an appropr=
>>>> iate=20

>>>> rule to follow in a society with large, anonymous cities.
>>>

>>> A strict constructionist would interpret the second amendment
>>> in the terms of the day, when "arms" were muzzle-loading
>>> muskets, pikes and swords - not (semi)automatic rifles,

>>> light-anti-tank weapons and rocket propelled grenades and where

>>> 'militia' was an organized group.
>>

>> <snort> Nonsense. The point of being a strict constructionist is go by
>> the words with a minimum of interpretation. The words didn't say
>> "muskets". And while they did say "militia" they didn't say "as part of
>> a militia">

>>
>
> What did 'arms' mean in 1780?
>

The same thing it does now. "Weapons".

[Don Bruder]

In article <mYOlz.39422$Pz4....@fx03.iad>,

If you actually read the text in question, you'll note a lack of *ANY
HINT* of a limitation on what constitutes "arms". You'll further note
that there's no "Except not-yet-invented things that some people might
find scary in the years to come."

There are some - myself including, who think that it would be perfectly
legal and proper under constitutional law for everybody and his dog to
have a nuke in his back pocket. Perhaps not DESIRABLE, granted, but most
definitely legal.

--
Brought to you by the letter Q and the number .357
Security provided by Horace S. & Dan W.

[Moriarty]

On Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 12:32:58 PM UTC+10, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 7/26/2016 12:24 AM, Moriarty wrote:

<snip>

> >> My rating: 3.8 out of 5 stars
> >
> > Is there any reason you go the extra decimal place in a 5 star rating system?
> >
> > -Moriarty
>
> Why not ? I still felt that the book was above average on a five star basis. I just dropped a little off that fourth star because I
> kept on getting the feeling that I had been here before.

Just curious, that's all. I find five levels more than enough to rate books with.

> I also mark some books as 4.4 stars on a five star basis when I really liked them but could not go five stars.
>
> After all, anything below four stars is crap:
> https://xkcd.com/1098/

That's a function of (mostly) fanboys who only rate things they like with OMG GIVE STARS BEST $THING EVA!!! which skews everything upwards.

-Moriarty

[hamis...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 9:33:40 PM UTC+10, Tom Kratman wrote:

> _Armed_ forces. Maaaan...I should not write this early, not before having my coffee.

Extend that to after as well please.

[Dimensional Traveler]

Oh, its not just him and Gutless. This is shaping up to be a three-way
with Quaddie too! Its almost making me wish just the smell of popcorn
doesn't make me nauseous as this is something to watch with drinks and
snacks!

--
Running the rec.arts.TV Channels Watched Survey for Summer 2016

[Lynn McGuire]

They are what they are and you cannot force them to change their
behavior. So, it is better to go along with them for now.

Lynn

[Quadibloc]

On Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 8:33:21 PM UTC-6, Don Bruder wrote:

> There are some - myself including, who think that it would be perfectly
> legal and proper under constitutional law for everybody and his dog to
> have a nuke in his back pocket. Perhaps not DESIRABLE, granted, but most
> definitely legal.

I don't mind the people who view the Second Amendment to have that meaning when
they _don't_ regard the consequence to be desirable. Presumably they will not
exert themselves to get the courts to make the consequence a practical reality.
I'm not going to claim I can prove it doesn't mean that.

But there are those who think that the government is indeed trampling on
fundamental rights by not letting private individuals own nukes. Presumably
they believe that anyone who could afford one would be beneficent, like Daddy
Warbucks, and so the danger of being blown up by a random psychopath would not
be increased as a result of their desired change in the law.

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

On Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 8:32:49 PM UTC-6, Lynn McGuire wrote:

> Why are you such a snowflake ?

I am not familiar with the idiom.

I suspect you're saying that I'm wishy-washy, like Charlie Brown.

But I was being consistent.

I think the Constitution says a certain thing.

That doesn't mean I think that what it says actually corresponds to the natural
rights that people actually have - or that adhering to the Constitution in this
respect would be a good idea in practice.

John Savard

[Tom Kratman]

Sadly, for you, no, fuckface. Have run into a maximum message limit. Working on it. I'll explain the rules of the game to you later.

[Tom Kratman]

On Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 6:12:47 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 2:39:18 PM UTC-6, Tom Kratman wrote:
>
> > Hence, yes, the overwhelming part of 1/4 of my gene pool went up in smoke. Grandfather married a Shikse, as did my late father. I was raised RC and am still RC, even if annoyed - to the point of no longer going to mass - at my local parish church for encouraging what I consider suicidal outlooks and behavior.
>
> I was raised a Roman Catholic too, at least in my earliest youth.
>
> However, when I was a student in Grade 1 or maybe Grade 2, I noticed that in my
> religion classes, the teacher was presenting as fact statements which were, in
> fact, controversial, rather than being the universal consensus - like what I
> learned in arithmetic class, that 2 + 2 = 4, and not 5. (Of course, I didn't
> think about the idea in such big words at the time.)
>
> Since then, I've been an atheist.
>
> However, Richard Dawkins would not accept me as a "bright". I believe that
> human consciousness is a real and meaningful phenomenon - and it is something
> that our current scientific understanding can't begin to explain, because
> there's nothing in it that comes to grips with it.
>
> Having an M. Sc. degree in Physics, and thus taken some courses in quantum
> mechanics, I know better than to use handwaving about that to find wiggle room
> for the soul - no, the explanation for human consciousness is something we
> haven't seen yet, and even though I expect it not to be "supernatural" in the
> strict sense, I expect it to have some of the properties we associate with the
> supernatural.
>
> John Savard

Did you get the PM on that?

[Quadibloc]

On Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 8:33:05 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <6e6d4d3d-6a96-4550...@googlegroups.com>,
> jsa...@ecn.ab.ca says...
> > On Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 12:56:39 PM UTC-6, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> > > and where
> > > 'militia' was an organized group.

> > The Second Amendment states:

> > "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the
> > right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> >
> > Thus, what that amendment directs is that the right of the people to keep and
> > bear arms shall not be infringed.

> > The reason it directs this is in order to facilitate the existence of a
> > well-regulated militia, which is claimed to be desirable because it is
> > essential to the security of a free State.

> > So, since the militia is part of the reason, and not part of the command
> > itself, to claim that the Second Amendment only allows people to keep and bear
> > arms if they belong to a militia which their state has organized - or if they
> > belong to the U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, or National Guard - is to
> > ignore the rules of English grammar.

> The individual right ship has sailed Quadi. The Supreme Court has
> ruled, it _is_ an individual right, there is no purpose served by
> further discussion of that point.

A judicious snip shows that I am in full agreement with you, at least up until
the word "there".

I did go on to note that, while the usual liberal interpretation was untenable,
that the reference to the militia had _some_ significance; NOT in making
keeping and bearing arms anything other than an individual right, but in
raising a question as to whether granting that individual right was, in fact,
serving the original purpose for which it was claimed the right was needed.

As the Supreme Court can overrule itself, and as the Constitution can be
amended, the merits of a right to keep and bear arms can still be debated.

More importantly, as both these things are indeed unlikely, one can ask if
certain minimal reforms - like barring people with serious mental illnesses
from access to firearms - would be reasonable and not un-Constitutional, even
if the NRA keeps trying to obstruct them?

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

On Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 10:56:27 PM UTC-6, Tom Kratman wrote:

> Did you get the PM on that?

My E-mail address is available on this web page:

http://www.quadibloc.com/ctact.htm

I do not believe I have received a personal message from you through some other
channel; however I will check to see if Google has something for me.

John Savard

[Tom Kratman]

TAL was the fourth, but a lot of folks get confused about where it fits because of the parallel aspect of it.

Could be one more, tentatively A Pillar of Fire by Night, to finish off the TU and some other business. Could be four more if I decide I'll live long enough to carry the war to old Earth.

[Quadibloc]

On Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 9:52:07 PM UTC-6, Dimensional Traveler wrote:

> Oh, its not just him and Gutless. This is shaping up to be a three-way
> with Quaddie too!

While I suppose that insulting people is the act of a bully, and thus it makes
sense to stand up to bullies and fight back, I see an exchange of insults as...
rather pointless.

John Savard

[Tom Kratman]

On Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 5:16:09 PM UTC-4, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
> tomkr...@gmail.com wrote in
> news:4351db65-b11d-44b6...@googlegroups.com:
>
> > On Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 4:29:52 PM UTC-4, Gutless Umbrella
> > Carrying Sissy wrote:
> >> tomkr...@gmail.com wrote in
> >> news:24a04e10-e4ff-419e...@googlegroups.com:
> >>
> >> > On Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 9:01:04 AM UTC-4, Peter Trei

> >> > wrote:
> >> >> On Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 7:55:07 AM UTC-4,
> >> >> tomkr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> >> > On Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 1:24:34 AM UTC-4, Moriarty
> >> >> > wrote:

> >> >> > > On Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 4:27:09 AM UTC+10, Lynn

> >> >> > > McGuire wrote:
> >> >> > > > _Come and Take Them (Carerra)_ by Tom Kratman
> >> >> > > > https://www.amazon.com/Come-Take-Them-Carerra-Kratm

> >> >> > > > an/ dp/147678
> >> > 0420/
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Snerk. A quick look at the Amazon reviews shows Krapman
> >> >> > > is still fla
> >> > ming people for not liking his books.
> >> >> > >

> >> >> > > > Book number five in a series of six books of alternate
> >> >> > > > history mili
> >> > tary science fiction. Published in MMPB. I own the sixth
> >> > book
> >> >> > > > and plan to read it soon.
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > Kind of a rehash of the fourth book in the series. I
> >> >> > > > am not sure w
> >> > here we are going here and am starting to lose interest.
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > My rating: 3.8 out of 5 stars
> >> >> > >

> >> >> > > Is there any reason you go the extra decimal place in a
> >> >> > > 5 star rating
> >> > system?
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > -Moriarty
> >> >> >

> >> >> > The other thing, Moriarty, is that that whole "Krapman"
> >> >> > thing makes you
> >> > sound like a kindergartener, which was, I think the first
> >> > and last time I heard that, some 54-55 years ago. It is, of
> >> > course, possible that you really _are_ a child, in years or
> >> > in development, in which case you can ignore my suggestion
> >> > of counting reviews as being perhaps a little beyond your
> >> > abilities.
> >> >>
> >> >> Yeah, its childish. But you seem to have confirmed his first
> >> >> point:
> >> >>
> >> >> " A quick look at the Amazon reviews shows Krapman (pt: sic)
> >> >> is still flaming people for not liking his books. "
> >> >>
> >> >> I don't read your books, and a one line 'snerk' from
> >> >> Moriarty which doesn
> >> > 't
> >> >> even address their content isn't going to affect my opinion
> >> >> of you or you
> >> > r
> >> >> work for good or ill. That he modified your name greatly
> >> >> detracted from
> >> >
> >> >> the level of trust I put in his opinion.
> >> >>

> >> >> However, your chasing him here and responding (after 5 years
> >> >> absence from
> >> >
> >> >> the group) with no fewer than 6 posts in an hour *does* tell
> >> >> me something
> >> >
> >> >> about you, and not in a good way.
> >> >>
> >> >> I hope your books are better than the public persona you're
> >> >> projecting he
> >> > re.
> >> >>

> >> >> pt
> >> >
> >> > Look carefully at sequence of events. You may note that I
> >> > commented to him last. This would tend to refute the notion
> >> > of chasing him anywhere. Glad I could clear that up for you.
> >> >
> >> Your behavior is that of a poorly socialized, petulant child
> >> whose little brother won't let him play with a toy he doesn't
> >> like anyway.
> >>
> >> That's not the reason I don't read you books. The only author I
> >> refuse to read because if the authors non-book behavior is
> >> Orson Scott Card.
> >>
> >> The reason I don't read your books is that they look like
> >> purile crap, and there aren't enough hours in the day to read
> >> everything that looks good.

> >>
> >> --
> >> Terry Austin
> >>
> >> "Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
> >> -- David Bilek
> >>
> >> Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
> >

> > Terry, you dick licking sack of maggot infested dog shit, you
> > posturing simulacrum of a morally, mentally, and physically
> > crippled sociopath, you fucking coward,
>
> I know you are, but what am I?
>
> > who the fuck CARES what
> > you read and don't?
>
> You, apparently. Since you are not literally spitting on your
> monitor, you're so worked up.
> >
> > Now shut up and sit down, little boy, adults are talking.
> >
> Welcome to my world, Tommy-boy. You're gonna be *fun*.

>
> --
> Terry Austin
>
> "Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
> -- David Bilek
>
> Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

No, Terri, you faggoty mass of self propelled shit, I am going to _have_ fun, just like 8 years ago:

If Edgar Allan Poe had written about Terry Austin

Hear the whining of the troll,
Crippled troll,
Bellowing his hatred of the people that are whole.
How he rages, rages, rages
In a mind that’s dark as night.
And the only bit of bright to
Pierce the cobwebs of that foul mind
Is his monitor’s own light.
Hear him whine, whine, whine
His pathetic little lines:
“You must answer,” “you’re my bitch now;” his illusion of control
From the troll, troll, troll, troll,
Troll, so droll
From the screaming-for-attention, bitter troll.

[Lynn McGuire]

On 7/26/2016 6:20 AM, tomkr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 12:43:11 AM UTC-4, mcdow...@sky.com wrote:

>> On Monday, July 25, 2016 at 7:27:09 PM UTC+1, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>> _Come and Take Them (Carerra)_ by Tom Kratman
>>> https://www.amazon.com/Come-Take-Them-Carerra-Kratman/dp/1476780420/
>>>

>>> Book number five in a series of six books of alternate history military science fiction. Published in MMPB. I own the sixth book

>>> and plan to read it soon.
>>>

>>> Kind of a rehash of the fourth book in the series. I am not sure where we are going here and am starting to lose interest.

>>>
>>> My rating: 3.8 out of 5 stars

>>> Amazon rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars (100 reviews)
>>>
>>> Lynn
>>

>> In what sense is this alternate history? I've only read Amazon Legion, but I didn't have any sense that it was set on a version of our Earth, and I missed anything that would have flagged a point of departure? I would have said that Alternate History is set in a world that could have been our own if one (or possibly a small number) of events had turned out differently.

>
> Alternate history is one of the ways someone could read it. It's not the only way.

Oh yes, straight out and out military sf / space opera is totally the
way it is written. But I tend to look at books a little sideways.

BTW, welcome to rec.arts.sf.written !

I live in Texas and was born here (4th generation). We won't talk about
the stints in Princeton or in Norman. I got back as soon as possible.

I really enjoyed _A State of Disobedience_ and rather hope that things
will not go that far if Hillary does accede the throne. There is a lot
of talk in Texas about secession but it is all talk. Of course, if we
could stop all the Kalifornians from moving to Texas ... and we are
allowing them to vote in our elections, unlike the illegals.

I also rather enjoyed _Caliphate_ and wonder how prescient you are. I
stayed in a hotel in Normandy seven years ago around the corner from the
church where that priest was savagely murdered this morning. One
wonders when the Europeans are going to wake up, if ever.

Lynn

[Lynn McGuire]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_Snowflake

Am I correct in thinking that you don't even live in the USA nor are a
citizen ?

Lynn

[Tom Kratman]

Depends on the artistry one brings to it. Terri, of course, has none, being nothing but a blowhard. I'm not sure why people let him get away with it. I decided some years past not to let him get away with it. Since all he seems to have is USENET, one can at least hope that by frustrating the swine here it will hurt him enough for him to improve the human gene pool by taking himself out of it. On the other hand, since he's unlikely ever to either find a woman to breed with nor be able to hire one for the piddling sums he might amass, and since any child that might be produced by rape would almost certainly be aborted, even if he doesn't take himself out of the gene pool, he'll never reproduce. And it's still fun to slap the rancid twat silly on what he considers his home turf.

[Tom Kratman]

Whether Caliphate turns out prescient or not, all the likely options are pretty damned hideous.

[Lynn McGuire]

So where do you stop ? My daughter has seizures and brain damage. She
is 29 and lives with me. Wold you preclude me from owning and
possessing guns in my home then ?

Lynn

[Tom Kratman]

On Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 6:13:59 PM UTC-4, Moriarty wrote:

> On Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 11:01:04 PM UTC+10, Peter Trei wrote:
> > On Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 7:55:07 AM UTC-4, tomkr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 1:24:34 AM UTC-4, Moriarty wrote:

> > > > On Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 4:27:09 AM UTC+10, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> > > > > _Come and Take Them (Carerra)_ by Tom Kratman
> > > > > https://www.amazon.com/Come-Take-Them-Carerra-Kratman/dp/1476780420/
> > > >

> > > > Snerk. A quick look at the Amazon reviews shows Krapman is still flaming people for not liking his books.
>
> <snip>

>
> > > The other thing, Moriarty, is that that whole "Krapman" thing makes you sound like a kindergartener, which was, I think the first and last time I heard that, some 54-55 years ago. It is, of course, possible that you really _are_ a child, in years or in development, in which case you can ignore my suggestion of counting reviews as being perhaps a little beyond your abilities.
> >
> > Yeah, its childish. But you seem to have confirmed his first point:
> >
> > " A quick look at the Amazon reviews shows Krapman (pt: sic) is still
> > flaming people for not liking his books. "
> >
> > I don't read your books, and a one line 'snerk' from Moriarty which doesn't
> > even address their content isn't going to affect my opinion of you or your
> > work for good or ill. That he modified your name greatly detracted from
> > the level of trust I put in his opinion.
>

> That's your right of course! Detract away.
>
> >

> > However, your chasing him here and responding (after 5 years absence from
> > the group) with no fewer than 6 posts in an hour *does* tell me something
> > about you, and not in a good way.
> >
> > I hope your books are better than the public persona you're projecting here.
>

> He's getting into a troll war with Terry. That should tell you how stupid he really is.
>

> -Moriarty

It's therapy, child. Just because you lack the gnads and the knack doesn't make it stupid for someone who has both.

[Quadibloc]

On Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 11:12:08 PM UTC-6, Lynn McGuire wrote:

> Am I correct in thinking that you don't even live in the USA nor are a
> citizen ?

Yes. I live in Canada, of which I am a native-born citizen. (Not that I'm
claiming any First Nations ancestry.)

John Savard

[Tom Kratman]

We really don't, and ought not, trust the government not to politicize the diagnoses. Any handle they may be given that can be perverted to a form of civilian disarmament will presumptively be used toward that goal, justice or facts be damned. It's not, after all, as if the gun control movement has ever shown much integrity. It's not as if every "common sense" law or "compromise" has ever been more than a new starting position for more "common sense" laws and more "compromise" until the people were disarmed.

Yes, it's unfortunate that we'll have nuts using arms for loony purposes, but that's only retail, an insurance premium, so to speak, for the policy of never letting government have that kind of control over us. Morever, the premium is quite economical compared to, say, the Gulag or the war we'll have if TPTB ever try to take the guns.

[Quadibloc]

On Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 11:15:06 PM UTC-6, Lynn McGuire wrote:

> So where do you stop ? My daughter has seizures and brain damage. She
> is 29 and lives with me. Wold you preclude me from owning and
> possessing guns in my home then ?

No.

But I would preclude people with schizophrenia, even if it is successfully
medicated at the moment, from owning guns, for example.

I would hope that a law could be drafted that would be reasonable.

Even though it would, indeed, prevent some people from owning guns that could
safely have them - i.e., such a law would likely ban anyone with a history of
depression from access to firearms, because a few such people pose a danger.
And so I admit I am supporting something you may not find reasonable.

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

On Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 11:21:28 PM UTC-6, Tom Kratman wrote:

> Yes, it's unfortunate that we'll have nuts using arms for loony purposes, but
> that's only retail, an insurance premium, so to speak, for the policy of never
> letting government have that kind of control over us. Morever, the premium is
> quite economical compared to, say, the Gulag or the war we'll have if TPTB ever
> try to take the guns.

I'm not unsympathetic to this argument. A disarmed population is potentially
subject to tyranny.

I think that Canada, prior to gun control laws brought in by Trudeau in 1968,
had the proper compromise; ordinary citizens did not need to register with the
government to buy rifles or shotguns, which had legitimate uses - but handguns
did require permits which, even then, were difficult to obtain without a good
reason. (Security guards and private investigators, however, could, and did,
obtain such permits.)

None the less, although the past Canadian experience seems to me to be a
counterexample to slippery-slope arguments... in the present political climate,
it's difficult for me to completely deny that such arguments have some validity.

John Savard

[Lynn McGuire]

No such law can be drafted that will not be perverted in the future.
For example, the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act. Both great laws
that made us, the USA, clean up ourselves. But these laws have now been
perverted and extended so much that we are losing industry and jobs over
them. I live in a non-attainment zone that is so much better now than
when I was a kid back in the 1960s. With the newest rules, they have
guaranteed that Houston will never be out from under the government
thumb. With eight million people living in a swamp, we are at the best
that we will ever be at without spending 10X the money we spend now.

Why do you care about the USA so much ?

Lynn

[Gene Wirchenko]

On Tue, 26 Jul 2016 16:36:20 -0500, Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com>
wrote:

[snip]

>Books are not part of a series until they are actually released OR in the pipeline. I am still waiting for David Gerrold to release
>books five, six, and seven of his infamous series about alien invasion.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_War_Against_the_Chtorr

I quit waiting.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[Tom Kratman]

I've long been somewhat surprised that no lawyer has yet tried to use the "peaceably assemble" clause of the 1st Amendment to defend the handgun aspect of the second. (AFAIK) After all, if one cannot leave one's house for fear, in order to assemble, then the right doesn't really exist, and if it is the government denying you the means to exercise that right, to wit being effectively armed, then it is, in practice, a government infringement of a fundamental right.