The psychology of the bully
inv...@example.com
"The most hostile group was the one with high but unstable self
esteem. These people think well of themselves in general, but their
self-esteem fluctuates. They are especially prone to react
defensively to ego threats, and they are also more prone to hostility,
anger and aggression than other people.
"These findings shed considerable light on the psychology of the
bully. Hostile people do not have low self esteem; on the contrary,
they think highly of themselves, But their favorable view of
themselves is not held with total conviction, and it goes up and down
in response to daily events. The bully has a chip on his shoulder
because he thinks you might want to deflate his favorable self image."
Roy F. Baumeister
Evil: Inside Human Violence and Cruelty
p 149
Old Man
> "The most hostile group was the one with high but unstable self
> esteem. ... blah, blah, blah
So who is being bullied by "the group." Roger? Give me a break.
Jeez, who would have thought so many old women would discover usenet?
--
Old Man
"Swagger isn't courage." Lee Iacocca
r...@biteme.org
> inv...@example.com wrote:
>
>> "The most hostile group was the one with high but unstable self
>> esteem. ... blah, blah, blah
>
> So who is being bullied by "the group." Roger? Give me a break.
> Jeez, who would have thought so many old women would discover usenet?
The notion of you bullying anyone, let alone us, is hilarious. And
you did mean us by "Roger", right?
Roger Matthews?
cordially, as always,
rm
Two Ravens
> inv...@example.com wrote:
>
>> "The most hostile group was the one with high but unstable self
>> esteem. ... blah, blah, blah
>
> So who is being bullied by "the group." Roger? Give me a break.
> Jeez, who would have thought so many old women would discover usenet?
>
I think you may have drawn a wrong conclusion as to the origin of this post.
I could of course be wrong.
--
Two Ravens
"...hit the squirrel..."
r...@biteme.org
It sounds like something submitted by The Phat Phuck, Macon Bacon.
He is always going on about this kind of shit.
It could be ANC but he usually signs his own work. But one thing is
for sure, nobody with a straight face can accuse the Old Man of
bullying anyone. He is far too pathetic for that.
cordially, as always,
rm
Roel Kluin
> And you did mean us by "Roger", right?
>
> Roger Matthews?
Shuffle these letters and guess what you get?
The worst gamer...
That should get some bullying started :P
Roel
Two Ravens
> Shuffle these letters and guess what you get?
Spiro Agnew can be re-arranged into 'grow a penis'.
Dan C
> "The most hostile group was the one with high but unstable self
> esteem. These people think well of themselves in general, but their
> self-esteem fluctuates. They are especially prone to react
> defensively to ego threats, and they are also more prone to hostility,
> anger and aggression than other people.
Al? Is that you, Al?
If not, who's the newest psychologist-wannabe here in AOLS?
--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
Old Man
> The notion of you bullying anyone, let alone us, is hilarious. And
> you did mean us by "Roger", right?
Agreed. You didn't get that?
r...@biteme.org
> Roel Kluin wrote:
>
>> Shuffle these letters and guess what you get?
>
> Spiro Agnew can be re-arranged into 'grow a penis'.
Another gadget. You people are pathetic.
cordially, as always,
rm
Old Man
> I think you may have drawn a wrong conclusion as to the origin of this
> post. I could of course be wrong.
It's Al's meme, but it's anonymous, so it's not Al. Regardless of who
posted it, the "AOLS is full of meanies" meme is tired old bullshit.
Rereading my response, I suppose it could be inferred that I thought Roger
was the author. I did not. I was asking whether the author thought Roger
was some sort of victim.
notbob
> It's Al's meme.....
> "AOLS is full of meanies" meme....
Howzabout giving the "meme" thing a rest. No matter how often you use
it, it's not propagating.
nb
Two Ravens
> Another gadget. You people are pathetic.
Strangely enough it was actually pointed out at the time that he was Vice
President, I can remember it can't you?
Old Man
> Howzabout giving the "meme" thing a rest. No matter how often you use
> it, it's not propagating.
Ya know, nb, I've used that word a total of three times, in two posts, in I
forget how many years. But just for you, I'll break the habit.
Old Man
Having retreated to the deck for a glass of wine, I have realized:
I have actually used the word in three posts; all three posts were fairly ,
recent; and the word is sort of silly and annoying. So, I am swearing off,
with thanks.
notbob
> recent; and the word is sort of silly and annoying.
The only reason I noticed it. That, and you are not typically prone
to such things. Besides, I'm just on the rag, today. Enjoy your wine
and ignore mine. ;)
nb
Dan C
> Having retreated to the deck for a glass of wine, I have realized:
> I have actually used the word in three posts; all three posts were fairly ,
> recent; and the word is sort of silly and annoying. So, I am swearing off,
> with thanks.
'Preciate that. For the record, I find the word somehow annoying, also.
It's Friday. Make mine a Jim Beam and water.
Old Man
> It's Friday. Make mine a Jim Beam and water.
My father's drink. And I am also partial to southern whiskey.
Sylvain Robitaille
>> It's Friday. Make mine a Jim Beam and water.
> My father's drink. And I am also partial to southern whiskey.
Jamaican Rum for me, please, but what's the water for? :-)
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sylvain Robitaille s...@alcor.concordia.ca
Systems and Network analyst Concordia University
Instructional & Information Technology Montreal, Quebec, Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Grant
>Old Man wrote:
>
>>> It's Friday. Make mine a Jim Beam and water.
>> My father's drink. And I am also partial to southern whiskey.
>
>Jamaican Rum for me, please, but what's the water for? :-)
For those who can't wait for the ice to melt? :o)
Me? Vodka, straight.
Grant.
--
http://bugsplatter.mine.nu/
ANC
Dan C <youmust...@lan.invalid> wrote:
> On Fri, 11 May 2007 13:40:56 +0000, invalid wrote:
>
> > "The most hostile group was the one with high but unstable self
> > esteem. These people think well of themselves in general, but their
> > self-esteem fluctuates. They are especially prone to react
> > defensively to ego threats, and they are also more prone to hostility,
> > anger and aggression than other people.
>
> Al? Is that you, Al?
>
> If not, who's the newest psychologist-wannabe here in AOLS?
Nope, not me Dan. You know I never post annon.
Al
Sylvain Robitaille
>> Jamaican Rum for me, please, but what's the water for? :-)
> For those who can't wait for the ice to melt? :o)
Ice? Doesn't anyone put their whiskey or rum in the fridge anymore?
> Me? Vodka, straight.
You could just drink paint-thinner, of course! ;-) Actually, I do
enjoy vodka and orange-juice ...
Two Ravens
> Jamaican Rum for me, please, but what's the water for?
try some "Woods" Sylvain, Its what we have in our house when we use Rum,
see: http://www.woodsrum.co.uk/home/
Sylvain Robitaille
> try some "Woods" Sylvain, ...
I'll see if it's available locally next time I'm buying. Thanks! :-)
Thomas Overgaard
Two Ravens wrote :
> Its what we have in our house when we use Rum,
The phrase "Navy Rum" remind me about this story:
<URL: http://www.usslexingtoncv16.org/esp39/grandolnavy.htm>
--
Thomas O.
This area is designed to become quite warm during normal operation.
inv...@example.com
As usual, you are not wrong.
To be specific, the quote is aimed at a particular individual who
has been attempting to bully and harass others here for a long time.
The fact that most alt.os.linux.slackware participants are pretty
much bullyproof does not change the nature of the bully himself.
I find it quite telling that the bully has portrayed himself as
the victim for so long that at least one other participant bought
into his story. If this really was a case of the group bullying
him, one would see other victims and a lot less ignoring. When
one person ends up in conflict with everyone he encounters, it
seems only reasonable to inquire as to what the common factor is.
"The most hostile group was the one with high but unstable self
Keith Keller
> Grant wrote:
>
>>> Jamaican Rum for me, please, but what's the water for? :-)
>> For those who can't wait for the ice to melt? :o)
>
> Ice? Doesn't anyone put their whiskey or rum in the fridge anymore?
How else do you expect to keep an overclocked 486 chip cool?
--keith
--
kkeller...@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
(try just my userid to email me)
AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt
see X- headers for PGP signature information
r...@biteme.org
> To be specific, the quote is aimed at a particular individual who
> has been attempting to bully and harass others here for a long time.
> The fact that most alt.os.linux.slackware participants are pretty
> much bullyproof does not change the nature of the bully himself.
Sorry, chump. But -Cibahole- was driven out of here long ago, with
his tail between his legs. The Coward Hicks hardly comes around
anymore and the only other one left is Dan C and he is too pathetic
for anyone to take seriously.
> I find it quite telling that the bully has portrayed himself as
> the victim for so long that at least one other participant bought
> into his story.
The only person who has portrayed himself as a victim is you, you
Phat Phuck.
> If this really was a case of the group bullying him, one would see
> other victims and a lot less ignoring. When one person ends up in
> conflict with everyone he encounters, it seems only reasonable to
> inquire as to what the common factor is.
Why the anonymous post? No balls?
> Roy F. Baumeister
> Evil: Inside Human Violence and Cruelty
> p 149
And who is he? Another Phat Phuck?
cordially, as always,
rm
the_bmac
> Most people stick around
> a couple years, and move on only checking in every once in a while.
and what does that say about a sad soul who hangs on, and on, and on
long past any point whatsoever, as if there ever was any point, except to be a pedantic pain in the ass
r...@biteme.org
> r...@biteme.org <r...@biteme.org> wrote:
>> Sorry, chump. But -Cibahole- was driven out of here long ago, with
>> his tail between his legs. The Coward Hicks hardly comes around
>> anymore and the only other one left is Dan C and he is too pathetic
>> for anyone to take seriously.
> No one was driven out. Both of them have lives and Usenet is much
> less of it now days. You are so pathetic you think you actually
> had something to do with it (+Chiron+ uses a Mac now last I
> heard). Most people stick around a couple years, and move on only
> checking in every once in a while.
Perhaps it's time that you moved on? -Cibahole- was your hero,
wasn't he? His bullying of "newbies" probably made you feel so
superior? Right?
Bugger off. With your tail between your legs. Just like your hero.
cordially, as always,
rm
r...@biteme.org
Pedantic? Well that would have to be Phat Phuck Macon Bacon! He
has taken to posting under anonymous pseudonyms but his style is
unmistakable.
cordially, as always,
rm
ANC
wrote:
It's ME. He's talking about ME! Wow, am I famous or what? :-)
Truth be told I only have two (ancient) machines running Slackware these
days. We moved off Linux and on to Macs last summer after a test period
gave us the results we were seeking.... manuf.-directed upgrade/update
and (in my opinion) well-engineered, quality hardware.
Personally, I miss Linux (which I use on my old IBM 600e when I travel).
Linux was fine for our publishing company (www.adams-blake.com) as well
as our web-service (www.jaya123.com) as all we did was common business
'stuff'... memos, letters, Internet etc. But when I re-opened the
(health) insurance agency (after years of being dormant) I found I
needed seamless multi-media (video, fax, scan, photo, sound, phone,
sync, etc.) and Macs excel at this stuff
(www.insurancesolutions123.com).
Plus, OS-X lets me run any X based software I want as well as most Linux
utilities (although I don't use either). We have a fork of OpenOffice
called NeoOffice ported to the Mac WM (Aqua or Coco or whatever) and it
runs fine. (We won't pay for MS Office!) I always think of Mac OS-X as
what BSD would have become if anyone in the BSD 'movement' was
interested in money!
I would not run Windows for the usual reasons. There is one lead source
(GoLeads.com) that requires Windows to run their software and I run that
under Parallels (a cheap but quite robust virtualization program). So
much of everything else in the ins. biz these days are
web-applications... although a few of them (Aetna... you just gotta hate
'em!) require IE 6.... but Opera on the Mac works OK with the few
carriers (like Aetna) who write buggy Javascript... and any site needing
ActiveX (I can only think of one) I can view with Parallels running an
ancient copy of XP).
I wish Dell (or someone) started standardizing on Ubuntu, or Slack or
whatever two years ago. What small biz wants (and will pay for) is the
old saying... "one neck to strangle." We don't want nor can we afford
high-priced hardware consultants AND software consultants ... who come
and go in/out of business with great regularity.. and who alwasys point
to the other guy as being the problem! We want to pay one-fee to one
large, well-established company who specializes in whatever we buy from
them, and they do it all. This is why IBM and Sun and HP are so popular
in the big-biz world. It's not so much a question of saving money, it's
a question of having someone to call 24/7, someone who is going to be
pro-active with updates (and warnings) and someone whom we know will be
there tomorrow, not out of business or on vacation, etc.
I never had a lick of trouble with my personal Linux machine... but I
was the only one who knew anything about the ones in the office... and
you all know how pitiful my knowledge of Linux is compared to what is
found here. And even on so-called identical hardware, sometimes the same
version of Linux had issues on certain machines (usually with respect to
scanning, printing, and video.) It was just a time-sink. We've not had
those issues with Macs. It's all just plug and play. Really.
I think that if you live in a large metro area, you can find reasonable
priced and reliable Linux consultants, but in a 2nd or 3rd tier city
like mine, it's hard. Apple (or Dell... we'll soon see) may not be
terrific, but they DO answer the phone and Apple Care is pretty
reasonable cost-wise for what you get (in my experience so far.)
The key is to buy QUALITY up-front so as to avoid problems later. That's
how I see the Apple stack. (You ever crack open an Apple Mac Pro (the
big tower)? It's a work of art inside. You may hate Apple as a company,
but most admit that their hardware and software are pretty well
engineered.... at least that is my opinion. I put these tiny Apple Minis
(www.apple.com/macmini) on the corner (literally) of desks and they go
24/7... just like Linux.
The day that HP and IBM (my preferred hardware vendors) standardize on a
Linux and offer soup-to-nuts support to small biz (like they do on
Windows to large firms) that is the day that small biz (15 to 200
employees) will take Linux seriously, IMO.
And you WERE talking about me. Don't deny it! Who is a more "pedantic
pain in the ass" than I? I'm the best!
Al
Douglas Mayne
loki harfagr
Quite for the price, though I used to prefer the Black Labeled one
when I drank liquors, at least the rare times I had enough money ;-)
Now that I have enough I'm not "in liquors" anymore, life's such a
bitch :-)
This thread is becoming a nice one, it was OT from the very
start but at least now there are informations in it ~;D>
Old Man
> It's ME. He's talking about ME!
No, it's not you.
> Wow, am I famous or what? :-)
What.
> Truth be told I only have two (ancient) machines running Slackware these
> days. (blah, blah, blah)
<snipped, because life is short>
Michael Black
Yes, and given you are talking about Jamaican rum, it would be
far more appropriate on "Talk Like A Pirate Day".
Michael
the_bmac
> In article <134ctjk...@news.supernews.com>, the_bmac <b...@c.com>
> wrote:
>
>> ~kurt wrote:
>>> Most people stick around
>>> a couple years, and move on only checking in every once in a while.
>> and what does that say about a sad soul who hangs on, and on, and on
>> long past any point whatsoever, as if there ever was any point, except to be
>> a pedantic pain in the ass
>
> It's ME. He's talking about ME!
<snip> yaaaawwwwnnnn er no I wasn't but if there is some joy to be had in seeing yourself as a
pedantic pain in the ass, then who am I to disabuse you of the notion?
r...@biteme.org
>> Perhaps it's time that you moved on? -Cibahole- was your hero,
> I mainly lurk - all the easy questions usually get answered before
> I get to them.
Oh, so you post for social reasons?
> I never liked him - his abusivness was primarily self serving.
You dislike -Cibahole-?
> But, at the very least he was helpful, and not pathetic like you.
> I guess little weak people such as yourself just took his rantings
> too personally. You are like some little retarded kid.
And you dislike us. It's not so bad when the name-callers are a bit
creative. But you're just boring.
cordially, as always,
rm
ANC
Old Man <bi...@witch.lan> wrote:
> <snipped, because life is short>
Having read your posts for years here, my guess is that with you, life's
not the only thing that's short.
Al
Old Man
> Having read your posts for years here, my guess is that with you, life's
> not the only thing that's short.
That's all you got? A one line, middle-school insult? Where's the 800 word
essay with quotes from Burke explaining the relationship between market
share and one's height, or the length of one's penis, or whatever?
I guess I should be grateful that you were concise, this time, if no less
boring.
ANC
Old Man <bi...@witch.lan> wrote:
> That's all you got? A one line, middle-school insult?
With you? That's all I need. You're just not that good.
What? You think you're in Syl's or Kurt's or RM's or Faux's league? Dan,
who is no literary genius, when he's sober and not profane, has you
beat.
You're way back in the pack.
You're not the lead dog, not even close to the lead dog... for a reason.
And the reason is that you're just not that good.
Al
Dan C
> I never had a lick of trouble with my personal Linux machine... but I
> was the only one who knew anything about the ones in the office... and
> you all know how pitiful my knowledge of Linux is compared to what is
> found here.
By ghod! I'm nearly speechless. An actual nugget of truth, spewn from
the jowls of ANC. Wow.
> And you WERE talking about me. Don't deny it! Who is a more "pedantic
> pain in the ass" than I? I'm the best!
Actually, you're just a minor irritant, usually. As for pedantic, and a
pain in the ass, "rm" outclasses you easily. There are a few other new
trolls around these days who may eventually pass you as well, but they
haven't proven themselves enough yet for me to pay them much mind.
--
"OS-X" - an American word meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
Dan C
>> It's ME. He's talking about ME!
> <snip> yaaaawwwwnnnn er no I wasn't but if there is some joy to be
> had in seeing yourself as a pedantic pain in the ass, then who am I
> to disabuse you of the notion?
You're an absolute nobody. You're nothing but a newly arrived troll,
and you're not even good at that.
Bugger off, n00b.
--
"Ubuntu" - an African word meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
Dan C
> little weak people such as yourself just took his rantings too
> personally. You are like some little retarded kid.
Yes, he is, although it's more like "some little retarded man" (or maybe
"some retarded little man"), which is even more sad and pathetic.
the_bmac
> I just think it is unfortunate Canada outlawed guns.
A common misconception. You can own just about any type of weapon you'd like here. You just have to
jump through a few more hoops in order to get one. There are more weapons in private hands per capita
in Canada than there are in the former "land of the free". For unexplained reasons we are 15000 times
less likely to use them on each other than Americans.
ANC
~kurt <actino...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> I just think it is unfortunate Canada outlawed guns. I mean, you might
> come off your meds, and decide to play some russian roulette. You play
> it enough and you will eventually lose. We can all look forward to that.
>
> - Kurt
Well, if that remark doesn't get you into second position in the dog
pack I don't know what does. Hell, if you could have two lead dogs on a
team I'd say that the above qualifies you. I can't think of any remark
that exemplifies the Slackware culture than a well-worded, carefully
thought-out death wish.
What is it about Slackware that attracts violent sociopaths like Kurt
and Dan C and where no one speaks out about it? There IS a 'psychology'
that is going on in this group and I'd love for some expert to examine
it and report on it. This place is a Ph.D thesis waiting to be written.
Actually this place is more like Germany, 1938.... a whole country going
insane... and no one dares speak out.
Well I will.
Kurt, you're over the line here. Well maybe not for 'here' but for the
rest of civilized society.
Al
Floyd L. Davidson
>In article <Od_1i.14869$3P3....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> ~kurt <actino...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> I just think it is unfortunate Canada outlawed guns. I mean, you might
>> come off your meds, and decide to play some russian roulette. You play
>> it enough and you will eventually lose. We can all look forward to that.
>>
>> - Kurt
>
>Well, if that remark doesn't get you into second position in the dog
>pack I don't know what does. Hell, if you could have two lead dogs on a
>team I'd say that the above qualifies you. I can't think of any remark
>that exemplifies the Slackware culture than a well-worded, carefully
>thought-out death wish.
I haven't been able to decypher that paragraph. But thought you should
be told that most dog teams run with two lead dogs...
>What is it about Slackware that attracts violent sociopaths like Kurt
>and Dan C and where no one speaks out about it? There IS a 'psychology'
>that is going on in this group and I'd love for some expert to examine
>it and report on it. This place is a Ph.D thesis waiting to be written.
It isn't this newsgroup, it's all of Usenet...
Actually, this newsgroup isn't bad in that respect compared to some.
>Actually this place is more like Germany, 1938.... a whole country going
>insane... and no one dares speak out.
>
>Well I will.
>
>Kurt, you're over the line here. Well maybe not for 'here' but for the
>rest of civilized society.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) fl...@apaflo.com
r...@biteme.org
>> You dislike -Cibahole-?
>
> I said I never liked him. I didn't say I disliked him. We got
> along OK mostly - only really getting into heated OT arguments (on
> the OT list). Unlike you, he never impersonated anyone, never
> stalked anyone, and was never a general nuisance to this group.
We've never done any of those things. You must be thinking of
someone else.
> He also didn't suffer from delusions about his role in the group
> as you seem to.
What delusions are those? We don't recall ever talking about our
role in this group. In fact, we don't even think in those terms.
But you do, apparently.
>> And you dislike us. It's not so bad when the name-callers are a
>> bit creative. But you're just boring.
> I just think it is unfortunate Canada outlawed guns. I mean, you
> might come off your meds, and decide to play some russian
> roulette. You play it enough and you will eventually lose. We
> can all look forward to that.
Canada has never outlawed guns, doofus. Where do you get your
information from?
cordially, as always,
rm
r...@biteme.org
And we are far more likely to confront polar bears. We think that
the polar bear should be the mascont for slackware. After all, they
will soon be extinct.
cordially, as always,
rm
r...@biteme.org
>>> I just think it is unfortunate Canada outlawed guns. I mean,
>>> you might come off your meds, and decide to play some russian
>>> roulette. You play it enough and you will eventually lose. We
>>> can all look forward to that.
>>Well, if that remark doesn't get you into second position in the
>>dog pack I don't know what does. Hell, if you could have two lead
>>dogs on a team I'd say that the above qualifies you. I can't think
>>of any remark that exemplifies the Slackware culture than a
>>well-worded, carefully thought-out death wish.
> I haven't been able to decypher that paragraph. But thought you
> should be told that most dog teams run with two lead dogs...
Is that in case the polar bears get one? We think that in Canada
one lead dog is good enough because we have enough guns to keep the
polar bears at bay.
cordially, as always,
rm
Dan C
I can explain that for you. First, it's too fucking cold to go outside
your houses to find someone to shoot. Second, you don't shoot the
others in your house because you're all too fucking drunk to find the
ammo.
Bugger off.
Dan C
> I just think it is unfortunate Canada outlawed guns. I mean, you might
> come off your meds, and decide to play some russian roulette. You play
> it enough and you will eventually lose. We can all look forward to that.
Indeed. I'm gonna go watch "The Deer Hunter" just for luck.
Dan C
>> I just think it is unfortunate Canada outlawed guns. I mean, you might
>> come off your meds, and decide to play some russian roulette. You play
>> it enough and you will eventually lose. We can all look forward to that.
> What is it about Slackware that attracts violent sociopaths like Kurt
> and Dan C and where no one speaks out about it?
It must be the quality of the morons, dipshits, and trolls that want to
be Slackers. Like you and "rm".
> There IS a 'psychology'
> that is going on in this group and I'd love for some expert to examine
> it and report on it. This place is a Ph.D thesis waiting to be written.
Get started, and post a copy here.
> Actually this place is more like Germany, 1938.... a whole country going
> insane... and no one dares speak out.
Clueless, meet Stupid.
> Kurt, you're over the line here. Well maybe not for 'here' but for the
> rest of civilized society.
Perhaps you and "rm" would make a good doubles team in the
aforementioned sport. With any luck, you'd both lose in the same round.
the_bmac
> the_bmac wrote:
>>> I just think it is unfortunate Canada outlawed guns.
~kurt wrote that you fucking moron,
this is what I wrote
>> A common misconception. You can own just about any type of weapon
>> you'd like here. You just have to jump through a few more hoops
>> in order to get one. There are more weapons in private hands per
>> capita in Canada than there are in the former "land of the free".
>> For unexplained reasons we are 15000 times less likely to use them
>> on each other than Americans.
and then you took time out from chronically jacking off on your GI Joe doll to type something or other
<snip>
it didn't matter what it was...does it ever?
one of the great things about setting up lots of machines is that I get to do this every time.
*plonk*
bye-bye dillhole
Dan C
> *plonk*
Hahaha, the last resort of a little pussy on Usenet. The public
plonk announcement! Hard to find anything more pitiful. LOL.
It's especially laughable when everyone knows that you haven't really
plonked me. Admit it, boy.
> bye-bye dillhole
Bugger off, n00b.
Sylvain Robitaille
> ... it's too fucking cold to go outside your houses to find someone to
> shoot.
Only in February, though, and perhaps early March. Your explanation
doesn't account for more than 4 to 6 weeks out of the year ... ;-)
> Second, you don't shoot the others in your house because you're all
> too fucking drunk to find the ammo.
Well, ok, that one is valid year round, eh? ;-)
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sylvain Robitaille s...@alcor.concordia.ca
Systems and Network analyst Concordia University
Instructional & Information Technology Montreal, Quebec, Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------------
the_bmac
> the_bmac <b...@c.com> wrote:
>> A common misconception. You can own just about any type of weapon you'd
>> like here. You just have to
>
> hoops you need to jump through to get one.
au contraire mon frère, those hoops do a *much* better job of keeping guns out of the hands of people
like that Cho fellow down there in Virginia
> Why do I keep seeing this on the news then?
well that depends on whether you're getting your news from morons like Bill O'Reilly or that steaming
sac of shit Rush Limbaugh
> I also keep hearing Canadians
> blaming the US for all of their gun related crimes.
oh horseshit...we blame Americans for;
- invading sovereign states that haven't threatened their national security
- ruining the NHL
- Brittany Spears
- carbonating chilled urine and calling it "beer"
> So, there is still hope for the resident moron - goody.
bad karma ~kurt
what goes around...
Sylvain Robitaille
> Why do I keep seeing this on the news then?
Consider carefully the quality and bias of the the news source. We have
more strict gun-registry legislation (for now, at least), but they're
certainly not outlawed, and note that I refrain from referring to it as
"gun-control". Guns are legal here for hunting, target shooting, and
perhaps a few other activities that I'm unaware of. What escapes me is
why anyone would want to participate in any of these activities with
fully-automatic weapons, which are apparently quite obtainable if you
jump through the right hoops.
> I also keep hearing Canadians blaming the US for all of their gun
> related crimes.
More bad journalism? We do blame the US for their *own* gun-related
crimes, and we frequently end up with copy-cat crimes, but in my opinion
the only ones to blame for any gun-related crimes are those holding the
guns.
Dan C
> One interesting thing I ran across is, similar to the UK, while firearm
> deaths are *much* lower than in the US, per capita violent crimes are much
> higher in Canada.
Likely the result of assaults by drunks with hockey sticks.
> Oh well, I like my guns.
So do I.
Sylvain Robitaille
> au contraire mon frère, those hoops do a *much* better job of keeping
> guns out of the hands of people like that Cho fellow down there in
> Virginia
Oh really?
Marc Lépine, December 6, 1989
Valery Fabrikant, August 24, 1992
Kimveer Gill, September 13, 2006
and those all occured in ONE city in Canada. Are they that easy to
forget? The third's weapons were all properly registered. I don't know
about the other two. Seung-Hui Cho was to some of us just one more in
a long list of names involved in similar incidents across the continent,
on both sides of the border.
Sylvain Robitaille
> Likely the result of assaults by drunks with hockey sticks.
That's just a two-minute penalty, though.
>> Oh well, I like my guns.
> So do I.
I like my hockey sticks. :-)
r...@biteme.org
> the_bmac <b...@c.com> wrote:
>> A common misconception. You can own just about any type of
>> weapon you'd like here. You just have to
> Well, that is kinda good news. The private ownership part - not
> all the hoops you need to jump through to get one.
> Why do I keep seeing this on the news then? I also keep hearing
> Canadians blaming the US for all of their gun related crimes.
It is very hard to get handguns. At least it would be for Americans
if they lived in Canada, because if you have a history of
psychological problems you cannot get one. This means that while we
would have no problem qualifying, you would. And it is virtually
impossible to get a license to carry a handgun around unless you are
somehow connected to police or security. And don't get your hopes
up because when we say "connected to police" we aren't talking about
handcuffs.
cordially, even to pure trash,
rm
r...@biteme.org
> One interesting thing I ran across is, similar to the UK, while
> firearm deaths are *much* lower than in the US, per capita violent
> crimes are much higher in Canada.
No. Perhaps reported "violent crimes" are higher. Or perhaps the
police charge more people in Canada for "violent crimes." But that
only means that we have more confidence in our police because they
are far less likely to be corrupt.
> Oh well, I like my guns.
Doesn't the sight get in the way when you shove it up your ass?
cordially, as always,
rm
r...@biteme.org
> Dan C wrote:
>
>> ... it's too fucking cold to go outside your houses to find someone to
>> shoot.
>
> Only in February, though, and perhaps early March. Your explanation
> doesn't account for more than 4 to 6 weeks out of the year ... ;-)
>
>> Second, you don't shoot the others in your house because you're all
>> too fucking drunk to find the ammo.
>
> Well, ok, that one is valid year round, eh? ;-)
Year round, Floyd takes his trusty .22 out on his polar bear hunts.
cordially, as always,
rm
r...@biteme.org
>> I also keep hearing Canadians blaming the US for all of their gun
>> related crimes.
> More bad journalism? We do blame the US for their *own*
> gun-related crimes, and we frequently end up with copy-cat crimes,
> but in my opinion the only ones to blame for any gun-related
> crimes are those holding the guns.
The US are regularly blamed for smuggling handguns over the border
and selling them to Canadians. And so they should be.
cordially, as always,
rm
Dan C
> Dan C wrote:
>> Likely the result of assaults by drunks with hockey sticks.
> That's just a two-minute penalty, though.
Yes, but if you get enough of those at once, it hurts productivity.
>>> Oh well, I like my guns.
>> So do I.
> I like my hockey sticks. :-)
I like hockey sticks too, but don't forget the famous American saying:
"Don't bring a hockey stick to a gunfight".
the_bmac
> the_bmac wrote:
>
>> au contraire mon frère, those hoops do a *much* better job of keeping
>> guns out of the hands of people like that Cho fellow down there in
>> Virginia
>
> Oh really?
evidently you disagree and have provided an exhaustive list of examples to the contrary...or not
> Marc Lépine, December 6, 1989
> Valery Fabrikant, August 24, 1992
> Kimveer Gill, September 13, 2006
did I say that we haven't had murders by nutcases with guns here in Canada?
no...I didn't, but why deal with the truth of my assertion when we can be almost clever about implying
what I didn't say. nice try. isn't there a kernel you could be re-compiling somewhere?
to suggest that conditions that create whack-job murderers are the same on both sides of the border is
disingenuous at best. who do you work for?
Floyd L. Davidson
A *lot* of polar bears have been shot with 22 caliber rifles
around here.
Keith Keller
> Dan C wrote:
>
>> Likely the result of assaults by drunks with hockey sticks.
>
> That's just a two-minute penalty, though.
Tell that to Chris Simon. ;-/
--keith
--
kkeller...@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
(try just my userid to email me)
AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt
see X- headers for PGP signature information
Sylvain Robitaille
> evidently you disagree and have provided an exhaustive list of
> examples to the contrary...or not
Certainly not exhaustive I'm sure, but pretty good examples to question
your claim that "those hoops do a *much* better job of keeping guns out
of the hands of people like that Cho fellow down there in Virginia".
You're right that I disagree, and I'm pleased you find I made that
evident.
> did I say that we haven't had murders by nutcases with guns here in
> Canada?
You claimed that our gun laws "... do a *much* better job of keeping guns
out of the hands of people like that Cho fellow down there in Virginia".
I gave you three very obvious examples that disagree with your claim.
Would you like to provide examples that support your claim?
> ... why deal with the truth of my assertion ...
By all means, please do deal with the truth of your "assertion". Please
show how our "hoops" have done a "much better" job of keeping guns away
from the likes of Seung-Hui Cho. Perhaps you'll show that the examples
I gave were not "like" Seung-Hui Cho, because they grew up in Canada,
not the US?
> to suggest that conditions that create whack-job murderers are the
> same on both sides of the border is disingenuous at best.
I don't recall making any such suggestion. Perhaps you care to refresh
my memory with a direct quote?
> who do you work for?
Check the signature ...
Two Ravens
> ...There IS a 'psychology' that is going on in this group and I'd love
> for some expert to examine it and report on it. This place is a Ph.D
> thesis waiting to be written.
We had a so-called 'psychologist' give us, (the newsgroup), the benefit of
his opinion a short while ago. He metaphorically stamped his feet and
sulked, then went on to loudly 'plonk' people, including me. To be fair
though, I don't think he was really a professional 'psychologist'.
As Floyd Davidson wrote earlier in the thread, its not just this newsgroup
its usenet as a whole, it also seems to have become a lot worse
since "Google Groups" gave access to those who previously had to be able
to operate a news client to post. There doesn't seem to be any consequence
to bad behaviour with "Google Groups" access.
--
Two Ravens
"...hit the squirrel..."
Sylvain Robitaille
>> That's just a two-minute penalty, though.
> Tell that to Chris Simon. ;-/
Yeah, ok, he and a few others I can think. It's too bad, though, because
I generally liked the way he plays. I obviously could not forgive what
he did, and I've been having the same dilemma with Todd Bertuzzi: like
the way he plays, but simply can't forget (or forgive) that one brief
moment a couple of years ago. Hockey's a rough sport, but these guys
are paid very well to play it not only at a very high level of
intensity, but also a high level of professionalism.
Wow! this is getting progressively further off-topic, isn't it? Do you
suppose Chris Simon runs Slackware Linux on his laptop? There! Now we
can carry on and it's on-topic! ;-)
Keith Keller
> Wow! this is getting progressively further off-topic, isn't it? Do you
> suppose Chris Simon runs Slackware Linux on his laptop? There! Now we
> can carry on and it's on-topic! ;-)
If Simon even knows what Slackware Linux is I'd be impressed. ;-)
With both Bertuzzi and Simon, I feel like they've taken their
punishment, now they're free. If they transgress like that in
the future, then the NHL can take their past into account, but
if they don't get themselves in trouble then it was probably
a one-time thing done in the heat of the moment without thinking.
That's a lot unlike some of the regular posters here, who repeatedly
(and incorrectly) predict the demise of Slackware: they've repeated
their behaviour so often it's hard not to advocate a lifetime ban from
the league.
I can't *forgive* Bertuzzi or Simon, but I would like to think that
I can try not to hold their past actions against them for what they
don't do in the present.
r...@biteme.org
> r...@biteme.org wrote:
>>Year round, Floyd takes his trusty .22 out on his polar bear
>>hunts.
> A *lot* of polar bears have been shot with 22 caliber rifles
> around here.
.22 magnums, perhaps.
And how many of these shooters lived to brag about it?
cordially, as always,
rm
r...@biteme.org
>> why anyone would want to participate in any of these activities with
>> fully-automatic weapons, which are apparently quite obtainable if you
>> jump through the right hoops.
> illegally it is difficult. I can't remember the last time I heard
> about full-auto being used in a crime over here, and I only know
> one or two people with full-auto permits.
Full auto is banned in Canada.
cordially, as always,
rm
Two Ravens
> .22 magnums, perhaps.
>
> And how many of these shooters lived to brag about it?
>
The ones who can shoot well I would imagine. Those such as ?Karamojo? Bell
and Captain Stigand shot African elephants, on a professional basis, using
the 6.5 x 54 Mannlicher-Schoenauer, others used the 7mm Mauser, yet others
the 0·600" Nitro Express, one uses the tool that does the job, always
dependent of course on the skill, experience and confidence of the person
using the tool. Some have used bows and arrows to shoot both big bears and
African elephants.
Sylvain Robitaille
> Full auto is banned in Canada.
Hrmmmm... I didn't know that. I was under the impression that it was
quite available (with appropriate licensing). I'm certainly not an
expert on the matter, and I appreciate the correction.
So, I rephrase my earlier statement: I don't know why anyone would go
hunting or target shooting with a _semi-automatic_ rifle or handgun ...
Floyd L. Davidson
All of them, idiot.
The usual gun available is one intended for seal hunting.
r...@biteme.org
> r...@biteme.org wrote:
>
>> .22 magnums, perhaps.
>>
>> And how many of these shooters lived to brag about it?
>>
> The ones who can shoot well I would imagine. Those such as ?Karamojo? Bell
> and Captain Stigand shot African elephants, on a professional basis, using
> the 6.5 x 54 Mannlicher-Schoenauer, others used the 7mm Mauser, yet others
The 7mm and 6.5 are far more powerful than a .22. The .600 Nitro is
an elephant gun.
What on earth are you talking about?
cordially, as always,
rm
r...@biteme.org
> r...@biteme.org wrote:
>> Full auto is banned in Canada.
> Hrmmmm... I didn't know that. I was under the impression that it
> was quite available (with appropriate licensing). I'm certainly
> not an expert on the matter, and I appreciate the correction.
Small, easily concealed handguns, sawed-off shotguns, and all
automatic weapons are "prohibited weapons" as defined in the
Criminal Code. Larger handguns are "restricted weapons" and require
lots of hoops.
cordially, as always,
rm
r...@biteme.org
> r...@biteme.org wrote:
>>Floyd L. Davidson <fl...@apaflo.com> wrote:
>>> r...@biteme.org wrote:
>>>>Year round, Floyd takes his trusty .22 out on his polar bear
>>>>hunts.
>>> A *lot* of polar bears have been shot with 22 caliber rifles
>>> around here.
>>.22 magnums, perhaps.
>>And how many of these shooters lived to brag about it?
> All of them, idiot.
Doubt it.
> The usual gun available is one intended for seal hunting.
Given that polar bears are a federally protected species, we would
hope so. In any case, nobody would shoot a seal with a .22 either
unless they had to.
cordially, as always,
rm
Floyd L. Davidson
>Floyd L. Davidson <fl...@apaflo.com> wrote:
>> r...@biteme.org wrote:
>>>Floyd L. Davidson <fl...@apaflo.com> wrote:
>>>> r...@biteme.org wrote:
>
>>>>>Year round, Floyd takes his trusty .22 out on his polar bear
>>>>>hunts.
>
>>>> A *lot* of polar bears have been shot with 22 caliber rifles
>>>> around here.
>
>>>.22 magnums, perhaps.
>>>And how many of these shooters lived to brag about it?
>
>> All of them, idiot.
>
>Doubt it.
Find a news account of a hunter being killed by a polar bear then.
You can doubt, but I'll just be laughing at your ignorance.
>> The usual gun available is one intended for seal hunting.
>
>Given that polar bears are a federally protected species, we would
You are a *total* idiot! Look up what the laws are rather than
spouting off silliness. There are polar bears shot within a few
miles of my home every year.
Across the Arctic coast of Alaska there are dozens of polar
bears taken each year. The reason seal guns are used is because
people are commonly out hunting seals when they come across a
handy polar bear to shoot. For any given hunter that only
happens once in many months, so there is no reason to spend big
bucks on a gun specifically for bears. They just shoot it with
the seal gun.
I know of polar bears killed with a .218 Bee, and virtually
every 22 caliber available (including 22LR rimfire).
>hope so. In any case, nobody would shoot a seal with a .22 either
>unless they had to.
The *prefered* weapon for seal hunting is a 22 caliber, including
the .218 Bee in years past.
r...@biteme.org
> r...@biteme.org wrote:
>>Floyd L. Davidson <fl...@apaflo.com> wrote:
>>> r...@biteme.org wrote:
>>>>Floyd L. Davidson <fl...@apaflo.com> wrote:
>>>>> r...@biteme.org wrote:
>>
>>>>>>Year round, Floyd takes his trusty .22 out on his polar bear
>>>>>>hunts.
>>
>>>>> A *lot* of polar bears have been shot with 22 caliber rifles
>>>>> around here.
>>
>>>>.22 magnums, perhaps.
>>>>And how many of these shooters lived to brag about it?
>>
>>> All of them, idiot.
>>
>>Doubt it.
>
> Find a news account of a hunter being killed by a polar bear then.
Fine. We'll do that just as soon as you provide a newspaper article
about "a *lot* of polar bears" being killed with .22s.
> You can doubt, but I'll just be laughing at your ignorance.
Nobody will hear your laughing from way up there.
>>> The usual gun available is one intended for seal hunting.
>>
>>Given that polar bears are a federally protected species, we would
>
> You are a *total* idiot! Look up what the laws are rather than
> spouting off silliness. There are polar bears shot within a few
> miles of my home every year.
So much for being an idiot. What's the matter? We can't hear you
laughing?
Maybe US law doesn't apply in Alaska?
> Across the Arctic coast of Alaska there are dozens of polar
> bears taken each year. The reason seal guns are used is because
> people are commonly out hunting seals when they come across a
> handy polar bear to shoot. For any given hunter that only
> happens once in many months, so there is no reason to spend big
> bucks on a gun specifically for bears. They just shoot it with
> the seal gun.
>
> I know of polar bears killed with a .218 Bee, and virtually
> every 22 caliber available (including 22LR rimfire).
>
>>hope so. In any case, nobody would shoot a seal with a .22 either
>>unless they had to.
>
> The *prefered* weapon for seal hunting is a 22 caliber, including
> the .218 Bee in years past.
The "preferred" weapon for seal hunting is a club, as you very well
know. We don't know about the US but in Canada it is against the
law to shoot a seal with a .22:
http://www.canlii.org/ca/regu/sor93-56/sec28.html
"28. (1) No person shall fish for seals, for personal or commercial
use, in any of Sealing Areas 4 to 33 except with
...
(c) a rifle and bullets that are not full metal-jacketed that
produce a muzzle velocity of not less than 1,800 feet per second and
a muzzle energy of not less than 1,100 foot pounds; or
(d) a shotgun of not less than 20 gauge and rifled slugs."
And NAMMCO reports that the most popular weapon for shooting seals
is the .222 and .223. As you know, these shells are far more
powerful than a .22.
http://www.nora.fo/docs/NAMMCO-hunting-report.pdf
"The minimum power of the rifles to be used for shooting adult seals
and seal pups is restricted by Norwegian law (Appendix 3). The most
common rifle for shooting seal pups is the calibre .222, while the
6.5 mm calibre is used for shooting adult seals. Expanding bullets
(i.e. not full metal jacket) are used."
And here's some more stuff:
http://www.ifaw.org/ifaw/general/default.aspx?oid=85324
As usual, you have proved that you don't know jack shit. But if you
want to go polar bear hunting, or even seal hunting, with a .22, we
are not going to try to stop you. The problem for you would be
range. You would be too afraid to get close enough to come within a
.22's range...do they have squirrels up there? If not, you're shit
out of luck.
cordially, as always,
rm
Two Ravens
> The 7mm and 6.5 are far more powerful than a .22. The .600 Nitro is
> an elephant gun.
>
> What on earth are you talking about?
Using smaller than expected calibre rifles to shoots dangerous big game.
The 0·600 Nitro Express was, as you point out, designed as "an elephant
gun", that does not preclude those who can, using a smaller calibre to
shoot either elephants or other dangerous animals that may be bigger than
the person shooting them.
r...@biteme.org
>> Nitro is an elephant gun. What on earth are you talking about?
>
> Using smaller than expected calibre rifles to shoots dangerous big game.
But all of these guns are much, much, more powerful than a .22.
cordially, as always,
rm
Floyd L. Davidson
>Floyd L. Davidson <fl...@apaflo.com> wrote:
>> r...@biteme.org wrote:
>>>Floyd L. Davidson <fl...@apaflo.com> wrote:
>>>> r...@biteme.org wrote:
>>>>>Floyd L. Davidson <fl...@apaflo.com> wrote:
>>>>>> r...@biteme.org wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>Year round, Floyd takes his trusty .22 out on his polar bear
>>>>>>>hunts.
>>>
>>>>>> A *lot* of polar bears have been shot with 22 caliber rifles
>>>>>> around here.
>>>
>>>>>.22 magnums, perhaps.
>>>>>And how many of these shooters lived to brag about it?
>>>
>>>> All of them, idiot.
>>>
>>>Doubt it.
>>
>> Find a news account of a hunter being killed by a polar bear then.
>
>Fine. We'll do that just as soon as you provide a newspaper article
>about "a *lot* of polar bears" being killed with .22s.
Why are you always so dishonest? And so dumb.
There is a lot of documentation. Here's one that
mentions a polar bear killed with a 22.
http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2438&page=5
And just a month ago the Anchorage newspaper had a story
about a brown bear killed with a .220 Swift
http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/wildlife/story/8803352p-8704592c.html
Here is an example of what I was talking about though,
Young Inuit children, usually between the ages of six
and eight, are taught to hunt caribou with a .22
rimfire. The .22 Hornet was once one of the most
popular rifles in the Arctic (and is often the rifle
caliber chambered in emergency survival rifles) only
because it was a very economical cartridge to
reload. One Inuit guide I once met used his .17
Remington for everything from polar bear to ground
squirrels.
http://www.realtree-ca.com/community/feature-detail.tpl?ID=42
>> You can doubt, but I'll just be laughing at your ignorance.
>
>Nobody will hear your laughing from way up there.
You won't, and you are a nobody. Everyone else is
laughing at you.
>>>> The usual gun available is one intended for seal hunting.
>>>
>>>Given that polar bears are a federally protected species, we would
>>
>> You are a *total* idiot! Look up what the laws are rather than
>> spouting off silliness. There are polar bears shot within a few
>> miles of my home every year.
>
"The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has officially
listed the polar bear as a 'threatened' species, due
to the meltdown of its sea-ice habitat caused by
global warming."
Dated January 2, 2007, from the above cited URL
But you should know better than to cite inaccurate, biased
sources on controversial subjects.
"The Service has proposed to protect the polar bear as
a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act
(ESA.) A proposed rule (pdf) that would add the polar
bear to the federal list of threatened and endangered
species was published on January 9, 2007, opening a
90-day comment period on this proposed listing.
http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/polarbear/issues.htm
Proposed, not officially listed. (The proposal was not
adopted.)
You are claiming that polar bears cannot be legally
hunted. I am telling you polar bears are legally hunted
here regularly.
Here is what the proposal said,
"The subsistence harvest of polar bears in Alaska is
not considered a major threat to polar bears and, like
the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Endangered
Species Act allows for a continued subsistence harvest."
Frequently Asked Questions,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Proposal
to List Polar Bears as Threatened Species
>So much for being an idiot
You are so much an idiot, now they must be laughing all
the way across Canada too.
>. What's the matter? We can't hear you
>laughing?
>
>Maybe US law doesn't apply in Alaska?
Maybe you still haven't been able to cite US law, idiot.
Try the Marine Mammals Protection Act of 1972. It's
pertinent. Guess what? My neighbors legally hunt polar
bears.
Idiot. Everyone else can hear me laughing!
>> Across the Arctic coast of Alaska there are dozens of polar
>> bears taken each year. The reason seal guns are used is because
>> people are commonly out hunting seals when they come across a
>> handy polar bear to shoot. For any given hunter that only
>> happens once in many months, so there is no reason to spend big
>> bucks on a gun specifically for bears. They just shoot it with
>> the seal gun.
>>
>> I know of polar bears killed with a .218 Bee, and virtually
>> every 22 caliber available (including 22LR rimfire).
>>
>>>hope so. In any case, nobody would shoot a seal with a .22 either
>>>unless they had to.
>>
>> The *prefered* weapon for seal hunting is a 22 caliber, including
>> the .218 Bee in years past.
>
>The "preferred" weapon for seal hunting is a club, as you very well
>know. We don't know about the US but in Canada it is against the
>law to shoot a seal with a .22:
You are a total idiot. Nobody here hunts Harp seal pups,
because there are no Harp seals here.
Obviously you don't know about the US... Idiot.
>http://www.canlii.org/ca/regu/sor93-56/sec28.html
>
>"28. (1) No person shall fish for seals, for personal or commercial
>use, in any of Sealing Areas 4 to 33 except with
>
> ...
>
>(c) a rifle and bullets that are not full metal-jacketed that
>produce a muzzle velocity of not less than 1,800 feet per second and
>a muzzle energy of not less than 1,100 foot pounds; or
>
>(d) a shotgun of not less than 20 gauge and rifled slugs."
>
>And NAMMCO reports that the most popular weapon for shooting seals
>is the .222 and .223. As you know, these shells are far more
>powerful than a .22.
You are an idiot. A .222 or a .223 *is* a 22 caliber.
>http://www.nora.fo/docs/NAMMCO-hunting-report.pdf
>
>"The minimum power of the rifles to be used for shooting adult seals
>and seal pups is restricted by Norwegian law (Appendix 3). The most
>common rifle for shooting seal pups is the calibre .222, while the
>6.5 mm calibre is used for shooting adult seals. Expanding bullets
>(i.e. not full metal jacket) are used."
So it appears that the Norwegians also prefer a 22 caliber for shooting
seals.
Idiot.
>And here's some more stuff:
>
>http://www.ifaw.org/ifaw/general/default.aspx?oid=85324
>
>As usual, you have proved that you don't know jack shit. But if you
>want to go polar bear hunting, or even seal hunting, with a .22, we
>are not going to try to stop you. The problem for you would be
>range. You would be too afraid to get close enough to come within a
>.22's range...do they have squirrels up there? If not, you're shit
>out of luck.
Looks like I did know what I was saying, and you didn't have a clue.
Idiot.
Floyd L. Davidson
A couple odd facts:
1) More elephants have been killed with a .303 caliber than anything
else.
2) More caribou have been killed with a .303 caliber than anything
else.
Two Ravens
> But all of these guns are much, much, more powerful than a .22.
>
That depends on what you are referring to as a '.22' as it includes not
only the rimfire cartridges but all the centrefire so-called .22's as well
the 220 swift is still a '.22' as are the 222's, if you mean .22 rimfire
then say so, as there are several varieties of that alone. The fact
remains as Floyd has pointed out, that an awful lot of meat gets taken
with former military calibres because there are a lot of rifles in those
calibres about, .303 and 7 x 57mm being quite common and even those
cartridges are known by a number of different nomenclatures .275 Rigby for
example.
Bullet placement and deformation within the wound channel are the two most
significant factors in choosing a suitable calibre for any given quarry.
Two Ravens
> r...@biteme.org wrote:
>
>> But all of these guns are much, much, more powerful than a .22.
>>
> That depends on what you are referring to as a '.22' as it includes not
> only the rimfire cartridges but all the centrefire so-called .22's as
> well the 220 swift is still a '.22' as are the 222's, if you mean .22
> rimfire then say so, as there are several varieties of that alone.
>
You may find these two volumes useful, I have. I know that I have Volume 1,
as at the moment most of my books are packed away I can't be sure if I
still have Volume 2.
http://www.eabco.com/Ackley01.htm
notbob
> Bullet placement and deformation within the wound channel are the two most
> significant factors in choosing a suitable calibre for any given quarry.
I don't see any problem with using a .22 rimfire to kill a polar bear.
Average weight of a polar bear is about 900lbs and the avg wt of a
Hereford steer is a bit less, about 750lbs. A field butcher, a
butcher who will come to your ranch and kill and butcher a steer in
the field, typically uses a .22 rimfire to dispatch the steer. You
put the little 40 grain bullet right in the brain pan and either the
steer or the bear are going to drop like a sack of potatoes. Well, in
truth, there may be one slight problem with the polar bear. It's not
likely to stand there like a dumb cow chewing its cud while you're
taking time to place that shot just so from about three feet away.
nb
notbob
> I know of polar bears killed with a .218 Bee, and virtually
> every 22 caliber available (including 22LR rimfire).
The lowly .22 rimfire is more than capable of killing a whole range of
animals, including man. It's perfect for seals. Forty grains of lead
to the brain pan does wonders for alleviating that pesky survival
instinct. No meat or pelt damage, too. Hell, even seals use them.
Navy SEALS use suppressed .22's for stealthy guard disposal.
nb
r...@biteme.org
> There is a lot of documentation. Here's one that mentions a polar
> bear killed with a 22.
> http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2438&page=5
That's not a newspaper article!!! Are you kidding us? One guy was
chased by a polar bear and he only had a .22. And according to him,
only one bullet at that. He shot in desperation and hit the bear in
the ear!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! We didn't think
the growing season was long enough up there to produce pot that
good.
> And just a month ago the Anchorage newspaper had a story about a
> brown bear killed with a .220 Swift
A .220 Swift is a hell of a lot more powerful than a 22L. Either
you are being disengenuous or you are really stupid and don't know
what you are talking about.
> Young Inuit children, usually between the ages of six and eight,
> are taught to hunt caribou with a .22 rimfire. The .22 Hornet was
> once one of the most popular rifles in the Arctic (and is often
> the rifle caliber chambered in emergency survival rifles) only
> because it was a very economical cartridge to reload. One Inuit
> guide I once met used his .17 Remington for everything from polar
> bear to ground squirrels.
> http://www.realtree-ca.com/community/feature-detail.tpl?ID=42
It is illegal to hunt caribou with a rimfire rifle in Alaska.
>>> You can doubt, but I'll just be laughing at your ignorance.
>>Nobody will hear your laughing from way up there.
> You won't, and you are a nobody. Everyone else is laughing at
> you.
Anybody that knows the least bit about guns has you all figured out.
> You are so much an idiot, now they must be laughing all
> the way across Canada too.
Here is what one Alaskan hunting "school" recommends for big game:
* Large caliber hunting rifle or handgun
* Appropriate rifle calibers include 30-06, 300 Win Mag, 338 Win
* Mag, and 375 H&H Mag
* Appropriate handgun calibers include 44 Mag, 454 Casul, and
* 500 S&W Mag
* 100 rounds of full-power hunting ammunition
http://www.frontsight.com/alaska/View/ViewClass.asp?Action=View&PID=203&ID=219&ds=f
It doesn't say anything about .22's now does it, doofus?
Here's what another guide site recommends:
Rifles for our big game hunts should be outfitted with good quality
mounts and scope. Calibers should be appropriate for species hunted.
270, 7mm, and 30 caliber cartridges we think best for sheep,
caribou, mountain goat and like animals. For Grizzly, Brown bear and
moose, 30 caliber rifles and larger medium bores such as the 338,
358, and 375 are excellent.
http://johnlatham.com/html/biggame.html
Gee, what about .22's? It seems that the pros don't use them!
And here is what one writer, on an Alaskan Government site says:
Personally, I like a dependable Mauser- type action chambered in
.300 Winchester Magnum. I shoot premium quality 180 grain spirepoint
bullets for everything from Sitka black-tailed deer to Alaska
Peninsula brown bears. The 30-06 with 165 grain bullets would define
my personal low end of calibers and the .338 magnum with 225 grain
bullets the upper end for an all around Alaskan big game caliber and
load.
http://www.wildlife.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=hunting.biggame_intro
It is against the law in virtually every country in the world to
shoot seals with a .22. And that's because the .22 isn't powerful
enough to kill the seal with any frequency.
>>http://www.canlii.org/ca/regu/sor93-56/sec28.html
>>"28. (1) No person shall fish for seals, for personal or commercial
>>use, in any of Sealing Areas 4 to 33 except with
>>(c) a rifle and bullets that are not full metal-jacketed that
>>produce a muzzle velocity of not less than 1,800 feet per second and
>>a muzzle energy of not less than 1,100 foot pounds; or
>>(d) a shotgun of not less than 20 gauge and rifled slugs."
>>And NAMMCO reports that the most popular weapon for shooting seals
>>is the .222 and .223. As you know, these shells are far more
>>powerful than a .22.
>
> You are an idiot. A .222 or a .223 *is* a 22 caliber.
Hardly. An M16 shoots a .223. You do know what an M16 is, don't
you? A .223 has a huge, center-fire cartridge, while a .22 is
a puny rimfire.
You're pathetic.
>>http://www.nora.fo/docs/NAMMCO-hunting-report.pdf
>>"The minimum power of the rifles to be used for shooting adult seals
>>and seal pups is restricted by Norwegian law (Appendix 3). The most
>>common rifle for shooting seal pups is the calibre .222, while the
>>6.5 mm calibre is used for shooting adult seals. Expanding bullets
>>(i.e. not full metal jacket) are used."
>
> So it appears that the Norwegians also prefer a 22 caliber for
> shooting seals.
Yes, right. A .223 travels about 1000 fps faster than a .22.
Here's more:
Southcentral Alaska's five most popular rifle cartridges for big
game: 7mm Rem. Mag., .30-06, .300 Win. Mag., .338 Win. Mag., .375
H&H Mag.
http://www.wildlife.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=huntingbulletin.hntbul8#cartridges
But here is the coup de grace. According to the alaska hunting
regulations, it is *illegal* to hunt bears, or any other big game,
with a .22 rimfire.
http://www.wildlife.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=regulations.hunting
Now, please. Go home.
Go on home.
cordially, as always,
rm