[Scott Dorsey]

Bill Graham wrote:
at the airport turntable and carried it all over Western Europe. In those
days, they didn't x-ray your luggage. I wouldn't travel anywhere on an
airplane today. The idiot liberals have ruined any chance of that.

Are you referring to idiot liberals like Richard Nixon and to George
W. Bush or to idiot liberals like D.B. Cooper, the PFLP, and Al Quaida?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[John Williamson]

Bill Graham wrote:
Guns and gun laws
As a practical matter, I need a gun to protect me from not only a
knife, but nothing but the bare hands of any 20 year old. I am 75,
overweight, arthritic and half blind. (I don't drive at night) So, it
wouldn't matter t5o me whether the muggers carried a gun or not. I
would be just as vulnerable, whether in England or the United States.
I thought I had made that point when I told you they were called,
"equalizers". But, if your criminals don't carry guns, that's great,
and I hoope it continues into the future. Here, however, many do
carry them, and for sure I intend to carry mine as long as I have
some use for it. I don't intend to travel to Europe again. I was
there in the 80's and I carried my gun there too. It was the last
thing I packed before I left, and the first thing I put back in my
pocket as soon as I arrived. As a matter of fact, I got it out of my
luggage at the airport turntable and carried it all over Western
Europe. In those days, they didn't x-ray your luggage. I wouldn't
travel anywhere on an airplane today. The idiot liberals have ruined
any chance of that.

Why? Air travel is by far the safest way to travel long distances. It's
safer now than it was in the 1980s, too, if you check the figures.

Oh. And another thing. I hate unenforceqable laws. Even if there were no
criminals on earth, and I never had any use for a gun, I would still
carry one just because it is against the law and they can't tell whether
I've got it or not. IOW, it is an unenforceable law, and I am duty bound
to break unenforceable laws. So, I have to carry one whether I like it
or not.

No you don't, you *choose* to be a lawbreaker and carry a gun. And the
only thing forcing you to break *any* law is you, there is no such duty
written down anywhere that I am aware of outside works of fiction.

Unenforceable laws are a class of "bad" laws, and Spencer Tracy,
in, "Judgement at Nuremburg, said, "It is the responsibility, and not
the right, of good men to break bad laws."

You would base your moral code on the words of an actor, spoken at the
request of a Film Director, written by a scriptwriter at the request of
a Film Producer with an axe to grind, then? Or did that particular work
of fiction just happen to agree with your prejudices?

You seem to have more respect for the criminals' right to kill me than
my right to a peaceful life. That says a lot about your attitude. Laws
here prohibiting the carrying of guns are enforceable and enforced, by
and large. In general, laws here are obeyed for the reason that people
see the benefit of a law-abiding society, not because the Government and
their supporters act as thugs. If there's a bad law, we are obliged to
get it changed by due process in Parliament, not by breaking it so often
that the authorities just ignore it. We have no written Constitution or
Bill of Rights, yet our legal system has been fairly stable for
Centuries longer than the USA has existed, and you borrowed most of your
laws from us in the first place.

When's the last time you forgot to lock your front door and didn't worry
about the fact? I remembered that I'd left mine unlocked a couple of
weeks ago while I was shopping, but didn't worry about either being
robbed or finding someone in my home who wanted to shoot me when I got
back an hour or so later. I'll bet you lock your car doors when you're
driving round, too. I don't, except in modern cars that do it
automatically once you go faster than walking pace. Nor does my 82 year
old Mother. She doesn't even carry Mace in her handbag (Purse, to
you...). Nor does anybody I know.

I've never walked through a metal detector then been searched, at the
entrance to a shopping mall, either, since I visited South Africa. It
turned out, by the way, that I had too many keys in my front right hand
pocket. The stainless steel general purpose knife in my left hand front
pocket got missed totally.

Normal service will now be resumed.

I would describe the noise of a (laser) pickup finding a dust particle
in a vinyl record groove as a click, not a tick (As made by a cheap
clock) or tic (As manifesting itself on my face on hearing some Pub band
mangling Stairway To Heaven. Again.).

Just my two penn'orth.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Frank]

On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 16:27:04 GMT, in 'rec.audio.pro',
in article Will everyone stop saying tic,
(Don Pearce) wrote:

On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 09:19:31 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

I recently read that younger people are referring to
the way they input data on computers and phones

"Enter" data, not "input" it. Why create a new usage when existing words are
fine?


I have a problem with Enter too. It actually means to go into, not to
put something into. Insert would be more apposite.

d


I have an "Enter" key (actually, two of them) on my keyboard.

Of course, in the olden days, it was a "Return" key.

--
Frank, Independent Consultant, New York, NY
[Please remove 'nojunkmail.' from address to reply via e-mail.]
Read Frank's thoughts on HDV at http://www.humanvalues.net/hdv/
[also covers AVCHD (including AVCCAM & NXCAM) and XDCAM EX].

[Richard Webb[_3_]]

Don Pearce writes:
So I suppose you would also object to someone saying he is "dialing" a
telephone. Telephones haven't had dials in decades. I wonder what we
should say instead?

FUnny, but the act ot entering numbers into a communications device which uses the phone lines is still "dialing" to me,
and to many.

I recently read that younger people are referring to the way they input data
on computers and phones as, "Keying". Supposedly it came from really young
kids who have grown up with computers.

And here you use "input" as a verb. Surely it would be better to say
"the way they put data into computers".

Maybe, but it's one of many words that can be both noun and
verb, since we're all waxing pedantic here. IF it's a label on your console or patchbay it's a noun.
tHe data the forecasters' modeling software uses to forecast the weather are inputs, also a noun. IF you unhderstand
what he means what difference does it make?

Richard
--
| Remove .my.foot for email
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet-Internet Gateway Site
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

John Williamson wrote:
Bill Graham wrote:
Don Pearce wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 22:47:30 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

No. I live in a country where they make laws against carrying guns,
and where only honest people obey the law, so the only ones who
carry guns are the dishonest ones. Except, of course those few
honest ones who have some common sense. (and thank God for us)

I think all that needs to be said on this subject has now been said.
We all understand your insanity.

Please don't come to England - it might be infectious.

d

Don't speak for, "all". Speak for yourself. there are some who
understand my logic, rather than my, "insanity". I don't know how old
you are, but if you are under 40, then the time will come when you
wish you carried a gun yourself. There are millions of people out
there who would kill you just to please their God, and they are
reproducing at an alarming rate. It is only a question of time.

Living in Britain, as I do, I find that it's very rare for criminals to
carry guns, and the weapon of choice in the inner cities is the knife.
Silent, and cheap to buy and run. The baddies who want to kill me
because their holy men tell them to are more likely to use bombs or
other weapons of mass destruction, and carrying a gun wouldn't be of any
help to me at all in that case. (We lived with the Irish Republican Army
popping off at us for decades, and nobody found it useful to carry a gun
unless they were involved in the local disputes.)

Carrying a gun *may* help you in a situation where you are attacked by a
gun-wielding nutter, but you'd better make sure that you're a better
shot than him, and can get your gun out before he or she fires theirs.
That situation is, IMO, only likely to arise in a society where human
life is held to be cheap. I've heard that drivers in the USA and South
Africa (As well as other countries where people routinely carry guns)
are very polite to each other because they know there's a gun in most
cars, and some drivers are prone to using them if they get cut up in
traffic. In Britain, we're just polite for the sake of it, though a
couple of cases of road rage involving ramming and knives are reported
most years.

The way I read the USA Second Amandment, by the way, would give a
situation very similar to the Swiss situation, where every adult serves
a term in the Army, and has a working gun at home,for the defence of the
State. That is, they have the right (and obligation) to bear arms as
part of a well-regulated militia. It's a pretty safe place to live.
Boring, though.....


The SCOTUS has rejected that interpretation. The "in order to form..."
stuff is now officially of no consequence. Finally.

People simply have the right to bear arms. Like this:

http://www.motifake.com/image/demoti...1288917337.jpg

--
Les Cargill

I suspect that's what the American Founding Fathers had in mind, as in
keeping the British out, not making it easy for their citizens to kill
each other off.

[Bill Graham]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
Bill Graham wrote:
at the airport turntable and carried it all over Western Europe. In
those days, they didn't x-ray your luggage. I wouldn't travel
anywhere on an airplane today. The idiot liberals have ruined any
chance of that.

Are you referring to idiot liberals like Richard Nixon and to George
W. Bush or to idiot liberals like D.B. Cooper, the PFLP, and Al
Quaida? --scott

I am referring to anyone who disarms all the honest people who fly, so the
terrorists can have a field day taking like 200+ people to Allah with them.
When I canvass all my aquaintences, I find that these are, for the most
part, liberals. It is a term I commonly use to describe, "stupid people".

[Bill Graham]

John Williamson wrote:
Bill Graham wrote:
Guns and gun laws
As a practical matter, I need a gun to protect me from not only a
knife, but nothing but the bare hands of any 20 year old. I am 75,
overweight, arthritic and half blind. (I don't drive at night) So,
it wouldn't matter t5o me whether the muggers carried a gun or not.
I would be just as vulnerable, whether in England or the United
States. I thought I had made that point when I told you they were
called, "equalizers". But, if your criminals don't carry guns,
that's great, and I hoope it continues into the future. Here,
however, many do carry them, and for sure I intend to carry mine as
long as I have some use for it. I don't intend to travel to Europe
again. I was there in the 80's and I carried my gun there too. It
was the last thing I packed before I left, and the first thing I
put back in my pocket as soon as I arrived. As a matter of fact, I
got it out of my luggage at the airport turntable and carried it
all over Western Europe. In those days, they didn't x-ray your
luggage. I wouldn't travel anywhere on an airplane today. The idiot
liberals have ruined any chance of that.

Why? Air travel is by far the safest way to travel long distances.
It's safer now than it was in the 1980s, too, if you check the
figures.
Oh. And another thing. I hate unenforceqable laws. Even if there
were no criminals on earth, and I never had any use for a gun, I
would still carry one just because it is against the law and they
can't tell whether I've got it or not. IOW, it is an unenforceable
law, and I am duty bound to break unenforceable laws. So, I have to
carry one whether I like it or not.

No you don't, you *choose* to be a lawbreaker and carry a gun. And the
only thing forcing you to break *any* law is you, there is no such
duty written down anywhere that I am aware of outside works of
fiction.
Unenforceable laws are a class of "bad" laws, and Spencer Tracy,
in, "Judgement at Nuremburg, said, "It is the responsibility, and not
the right, of good men to break bad laws."

You would base your moral code on the words of an actor, spoken at the
request of a Film Director, written by a scriptwriter at the request
of a Film Producer with an axe to grind, then? Or did that particular
work of fiction just happen to agree with your prejudices?

You seem to have more respect for the criminals' right to kill me than
my right to a peaceful life. That says a lot about your attitude. Laws
here prohibiting the carrying of guns are enforceable and enforced, by
and large. In general, laws here are obeyed for the reason that people
see the benefit of a law-abiding society, not because the Government
and their supporters act as thugs. If there's a bad law, we are
obliged to get it changed by due process in Parliament, not by
breaking it so often that the authorities just ignore it. We have no
written Constitution or Bill of Rights, yet our legal system has been
fairly stable for Centuries longer than the USA has existed, and you
borrowed most of your laws from us in the first place.

When's the last time you forgot to lock your front door and didn't
worry about the fact? I remembered that I'd left mine unlocked a
couple of weeks ago while I was shopping, but didn't worry about
either being robbed or finding someone in my home who wanted to shoot
me when I got back an hour or so later. I'll bet you lock your car
doors when you're driving round, too. I don't, except in modern cars
that do it automatically once you go faster than walking pace. Nor
does my 82 year old Mother. She doesn't even carry Mace in her
handbag (Purse, to you...). Nor does anybody I know.

I've never walked through a metal detector then been searched, at the
entrance to a shopping mall, either, since I visited South Africa. It
turned out, by the way, that I had too many keys in my front right
hand pocket. The stainless steel general purpose knife in my left
hand front pocket got missed totally.

Normal service will now be resumed.

I would describe the noise of a (laser) pickup finding a dust particle
in a vinyl record groove as a click, not a tick (As made by a cheap
clock) or tic (As manifesting itself on my face on hearing some Pub
band mangling Stairway To Heaven. Again.).

Just my two penn'orth.

My respect is for those who chose to defend themselves over no defense at
all. Only idiots think that the police can protect them from crime. The
police can hunt down the perpetrators of crimes after the fact, and they do
a passable job of that, but the only one who can protect you from crime is
the one who happens to be there when the crime is committed, and that person
is you. Why is that so hard for stupid liberals to understand?

[Bill Graham]

John Williamson wrote:
Bill Graham wrote:
Guns and gun laws
As a practical matter, I need a gun to protect me from not only a
knife, but nothing but the bare hands of any 20 year old. I am 75,
overweight, arthritic and half blind. (I don't drive at night) So,
it wouldn't matter t5o me whether the muggers carried a gun or not.
I would be just as vulnerable, whether in England or the United
States. I thought I had made that point when I told you they were
called, "equalizers". But, if your criminals don't carry guns,
that's great, and I hoope it continues into the future. Here,
however, many do carry them, and for sure I intend to carry mine as
long as I have some use for it. I don't intend to travel to Europe
again. I was there in the 80's and I carried my gun there too. It
was the last thing I packed before I left, and the first thing I
put back in my pocket as soon as I arrived. As a matter of fact, I
got it out of my luggage at the airport turntable and carried it
all over Western Europe. In those days, they didn't x-ray your
luggage. I wouldn't travel anywhere on an airplane today. The idiot
liberals have ruined any chance of that.

Why? Air travel is by far the safest way to travel long distances.
It's safer now than it was in the 1980s, too, if you check the
figures.
Oh. And another thing. I hate unenforceqable laws. Even if there
were no criminals on earth, and I never had any use for a gun, I
would still carry one just because it is against the law and they
can't tell whether I've got it or not. IOW, it is an unenforceable
law, and I am duty bound to break unenforceable laws. So, I have to
carry one whether I like it or not.

No you don't, you *choose* to be a lawbreaker and carry a gun. And the
only thing forcing you to break *any* law is you, there is no such
duty written down anywhere that I am aware of outside works of
fiction.
Unenforceable laws are a class of "bad" laws, and Spencer Tracy,
in, "Judgement at Nuremburg, said, "It is the responsibility, and not
the right, of good men to break bad laws."

You would base your moral code on the words of an actor, spoken at the
request of a Film Director, written by a scriptwriter at the request
of a Film Producer with an axe to grind, then? Or did that particular
work of fiction just happen to agree with your prejudices?

No, its just that he put it so well, and in the context of the motion
picture he acted in, it said an awful lot.....It reached out and spoke to me
in a way that I have never forgotten. Its too bad that modern pictures don't
have that kind of impact on people. Tracy's words have dominated my whole
life, and made me aware of my libertarianism.

[geoff]

"Gareth Magennis" wrote in message
...



"Mic" has a clear and unique meaning. It is a simple abbreviation of
"Microphone" that everyone understands.
"Mike" is the name of millions of people on this planet.



Mic , for sure.

But never "micing" - Make it "miking" for sure. Micing sounds/looks very
disturbing.

geoff

[geoff]

"Gareth Magennis" wrote in message
...

I tried throwing a discus at school once . It was a heavy chunk of wood
with a heavy metal surround, and I couldn't see the point of it at all.


It was round - it didn't have a pouint. That's a javellin.

And I guess you didn't throw furtherest then, or is that farthest ?

geoff

[geoff]

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
geoff wrote:
"Tom McCreadie" wrote in message
...
A tic is a spasm of the facial muscles. A short sharp sound is a TICK
- like what a clock does.
And while we're on a roll, could the whole usenet/web-forum world now
please stop saying "revert back" instead of "revert" and "loose" when
they mean "lose" .

And "alot" instead of "a lot".

And "ass" instead of "arse".

People on the left of the Atlantic have asses, people on the right have
arses. And asses, but they normally call them donkeys. Or politicians.....

Make that ".... right of the Atlantic and left of the Pacific". In those
places there is no direct donkey connotation (or confusion) to the word.

geoff

[Bill Graham]

geoff wrote:
"Gareth Magennis" wrote in message
...



"Mic" has a clear and unique meaning. It is a simple abbreviation of
"Microphone" that everyone understands.
"Mike" is the name of millions of people on this planet.



Mic , for sure.

But never "micing" - Make it "miking" for sure. Micing sounds/looks
very disturbing.

geoff

"Micing" sounds like what my cat does when he's lucky enough to get two or
more at a time......

[PStamler]

Guys, give it up. Arguing with a Gun Troll is about as productive as
arguing with a Linux Troll, or a Nader Troll, or pounding sand with a
mallet.

Let's get back to the important stuff. Re. "disk" vs. "disc": I've
just been listening to a 78 by the Arthur Smith, "Guitar Boogie"; it's
on the Super Disc label. The record was released in 1946, according to
Wikipedia (the hit came two years later

[PStamler]

Guys, give it up. Arguing with a Gun Troll is as pointless as arguing
with a Linux Troll, or a Nader Troll, or pounding sand with a mallet.

Let's get back to the important stuff. I've just been listening to
"Guitar Boogie", recorded by the Rambler Trio featuring Arthur Smith.
It's on the Super-Disc label; it was released in 1946 (he had a major
hit in 1948 with a re-recording of the piece for MGM). So we have a
documented use of "disc" for a recording quite a while before Sony and
Philips trademarked "Compact Disc".

Good record, too, although quite noisy. Somebody really liked it.

Peace,
Paul

[Ed Anson]

On 6/30/11 5:11 PM, Frank wrote:
I have an "Enter" key (actually, two of them) on my keyboard.

Of course, in the olden days, it was a "Return" key.


I once had a keyboard with both Return and Enter keys. They had
different uses. I kind of miss that Enter key.

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Ed Anson wrote:

On 6/30/11 5:11 PM, Frank wrote:
I have an "Enter" key (actually, two of them) on my keyboard.

Of course, in the olden days, it was a "Return" key.

I once had a keyboard with both Return and Enter keys. They had
different uses. I kind of miss that Enter key.

I get it, we have a thread for following up in in case it is raining.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Bill Graham wrote:

geoff wrote:

But never "micing" - Make it "miking" for sure. Micing sounds/looks
very disturbing.

"Micing" sounds like what my cat does when he's lucky enough to get
two or more at a time......

it is indeed very disturbing to the mice. Also in micing the deployed
objects move on to the next plane of existence, in miking they only rarely
do so.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Bill Graham wrote:

No. I live in a country where they make laws against carrying guns,
and where only honest people obey the law, so the only ones who carry
guns are the dishonest ones. Except, of course those few honest ones
who have some common sense. (and thank God for us)

There is a simple correlation between number of guns and number of people
dead from gunshots.

The old nickname for guns was the, "equalizer". This was because they
made everyone equal. A little old lady had the capability of blowing
away a 6 foot 20 year old man. In a country where there are no
equalizers, the 6 foot 20 year olds can dominate everyone else.

In the Wild West History book I have, methinks it is a translation of a US
written book, the civilizing started with prohibiting wearing guns in the
street in the cities of the wild west. Creating and maintaining the state
violence monopoly is an important part of civilization.

That said the state cowardice in maintaining the state violence monopoly
when it is challenged does seem to be changing the attitude to having
readily usable weapons in the home over here.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[William Sommerwerck]

"Peter Larsen" wrote in message
k...
Bill Graham wrote:

No. I live in a country where they make laws against carrying guns,
and where only honest people obey the law, so the only ones who carry
guns are the dishonest ones. Except, of course those few honest ones
who have some common sense. (And thank God for us.)

There is a simple correlation between number of guns and number
of people dead from gunshots.

This is probably true, but I'd like to see some statistics.

There's no question that if more people carried concealed weapons, there
would be less crime -- but there would probably be more murders.


The old nickname for guns was the, "equalizer". This was because they
made everyone equal. A little old lady had the capability of blowing
away a 6-foot 20-year-old man. In a country where there are no
equalizers, the 6 foot 20 year olds can dominate everyone else.

In the Wild West History book I have (methinks it is a translation [sic]
of
a US-written book) the civilizing [what happened to the Briitsh s?]started
with prohibiting wearing guns in the street in the cities of the wild
west.

In "We Hearded Them North", Edward Abbot, a real cow-boy born in 1860,
suggested that gun-wearing reduced fights and other violence -- which
probably explains why there's so much idiocy in UseNet groups.
Interestingly, Abbot felt that most of the arguing and fighting occurred
among younger men, who were less mature and stable.


Creating and maintaining the state violence
monopoly is an important part of civilization.

Sounds like you've been reading "The Shield of Achilles". Babbit makes
exactly this point.

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

William Sommerwerck wrote:

In the Wild West History book I have (methinks it is a translation
[sic] of a US-written book)

Everybody knows that us written books _are_ translated prior to release in
England.

the civilizing [what happened to the
Briitsh s?]

Frankly, your spelling is worse than mine.

Creating and maintaining the state violence
monopoly is an important part of civilization.

Sounds like you've been reading "The Shield of Achilles".

No,

Babbit makes exactly this point.

It is one of the more obvioüs points when looking at a society. Maintaining
that monopoly is the only way to stop and prevent feuds and
re-tribalization.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Bill Graham]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Peter Larsen" wrote in message
k...
Bill Graham wrote:

No. I live in a country where they make laws against carrying guns,
and where only honest people obey the law, so the only ones who
carry guns are the dishonest ones. Except, of course those few
honest ones who have some common sense. (And thank God for us.)

There is a simple correlation between number of guns and number
of people dead from gunshots.

This is probably true, but I'd like to see some statistics.

There's no question that if more people carried concealed weapons,
there would be less crime -- but there would probably be more murders.

I don't believe there would be more, "murders", but there would certainly be
more accidental deaths. but their would be benefits too. In the same way
that removing all the automobiles would result in less accidental deaths,
but nobody would be able to drive to work. There are benefits and drawbacks
to guns. I think the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. The gun is a tool. It
is for killing people. Some people need badly to be killed, and when you run
into one of these, its very helpful if you have the tool with you. If there
are others who misuse the tool....Well, that will always happen with any
tool. But that shouldn't force those who know how to use it properly to have
to do without it. Why force the society to live down to its lowest proper
level? Lets go with catering to the enlightened ones and hope the others
will learn something.

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Bill Graham wrote:


There is a simple correlation between number of guns and number
of people dead from gunshots.

This is probably true, but I'd like to see some statistics.

There's no question that if more people carried concealed weapons,
there would be less crime -- but there would probably be more
murders.

I don't believe there would be more, "murders", but there would
certainly be more accidental deaths. but their would be benefits too.
In the same way that removing all the automobiles would result in
less accidental deaths, but nobody would be able to drive to work.
There are benefits and drawbacks to guns. I think the benefits
outweigh the drawbacks. The gun is a tool. It is for killing people.
Some people need badly to be killed, and when you run into one of
these, its very helpful if you have the tool with you. If there are
others who misuse the tool....Well, that will always happen with any
tool. But that shouldn't force those who know how to use it properly
to have to do without it. Why force the society to live down to its
lowest proper level? Lets go with catering to the enlightened ones
and hope the others will learn something.

Are you enlightned? - are you in any way more than you fellow man - the
right to the enlightened to kill the untermenschen is way far along the road
to fascism, way too far. Man should not allow any man god status of any
kind.

Thank you for providing such an excellent example of why society can not
allow the populace to take its own revenges. What is not quite so well
understood among politicians is that with the violence monopoly comes the
obligation to maintain it, ie. to provide credible law enforcement.

Mind you, I would certainly own a gun if it was allowed here in Denmark, but
your line of reasoning to the effect that "the fit" have the right and
obligation to kill "the unfit" is the reasoning that drives killing
offspring because it falls in love with offspring of people you do not like,
or drove any genocide anywhere anytime. It is just not acceptable.

Sir, there is something about democracy you have plain not understood.

Peter Larsen

[William Sommerwerck]

"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...
William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Peter Larsen" wrote in message
k...
Bill Graham wrote:

No. I live in a country where they make laws against carrying guns,
and where only honest people obey the law, so the only ones who
carry guns are the dishonest ones. Except, of course those few
honest ones who have some common sense. (And thank God for us.)

There is a simple correlation between number of guns and number
of people dead from gunshots.

This is probably true, but I'd like to see some statistics.
There's no question that if more people carried concealed weapons,
there would be less crime -- but there would probably be more murders.

I don't believe there would be more, "murders", but there would certainly
be
more accidental deaths. but their would be benefits too. In the same way
that removing all the automobiles would result in less accidental deaths,
but nobody would be able to drive to work. There are benefits and
drawbacks
to guns. I think the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. The gun is a tool.
It
is for killing people. Some people need badly to be killed, and when you
run
into one of these, its very helpful if you have the tool with you.

When someone who feels you should no longer inhabit this planet visits your
home... Will you as willingly cede your life to their view of your
non-importance?

[ChrisCoaster]

On Jun 29, 1:29*am, (Don Pearce) wrote:
A tic is a spasm of the facial muscles. A short sharp sound is a TICK
- like what a clock does.

Thank you - happy now.

d
__________________
How about the HEIGTH of a building?

LOL

[Scott Dorsey]

PStamler wrote:
Guys, give it up. Arguing with a Gun Troll is about as productive as
arguing with a Linux Troll, or a Nader Troll, or pounding sand with a
mallet.

The problem is that I actually support ownership of guns. But I don't
see where the original poster has got his delusional notion that the current
crazy airport security has any connection with it.

In fact, taking guns onboard commercial airliners in the US is very easy
and just requires your identifying them in your checked luggage. You
can't take guns in your carry-on, but you can't even take an allen wrench
in your carry on. Now, if they'd only ban cellphones and toys that make
loud beeping noises constantly for hours.

I just find it kind of amusing watching the guy thrashing around trying
to defend his connections between totally irrelevant things, both with
audio and politics. It's as if he lives in some different world than
the rest of us exist in.

Let's get back to the important stuff. Re. "disk" vs. "disc": I've
just been listening to a 78 by the Arthur Smith, "Guitar Boogie"; it's
on the Super Disc label. The record was released in 1946, according to
Wikipedia (the hit came two years later

It's a disque. It's played by a "disqueiere" at the disco club.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Carey Carlan]

bob wrote in news:vk4n07985luuefgukiip5a69odfti0j5bq@
4ax.com:

On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 08:10:00 -0400, Mike Rivers
wrote:

On 6/29/2011 7:29 AM, Audio1 wrote:

And please stop using unnecessary apostrophe's like this?

and get it's and its straight. and your and you're. and who's and
whose. and discreet and discrete. and rediculous is actually
ridiculous. and and and... but i'm an english teacher (who doesn't use
capitals much...) and would gladly trade all english knowledge for the
combined music and engineering knowledge of this ng! keep up the good
work and tell me which interface to buy!

I wasn't aware that "discreet" existed. Thank you. All my class "A"
discrete transistor microphone preamps can now record discreet
conversations.

[PStamler]

On Jul 2, 8:27*pm, Carey Carlan wrote:

I wasn't aware that "discreet" existed. *Thank you. *All my class "A"
discrete transistor microphone preamps can now record discreet
conversations.

Oh yeah, and can we please stop using "Class-A" as though it's
synonymous with "discrete solid-state"? Tube circuits can operate in
Class-A, and so can integrated circuits.

And along with that, I'd like to see mic manufacturers quit
advertising their head amplifiers as "Class-A". It's not a lie, but
then, has anybody ever made a Class-B or even Class-AB head amp?

Peace,
Paul

[[email protected]]

On 2011-07-02 (ScottDorsey) said:
In fact, taking guns onboard commercial airliners in the US is very
easy and just requires your identifying them in your checked
luggage. You can't take guns in your carry-on, but you can't even
take an allen wrench in your carry on. Now, if they'd only ban
cellphones and toys that make loud beeping noises constantly for
hours.

I would agree with that! yEs I support individual gun
ownership, my lady and I own guns, and I will defend my home
with mine. I prefer not to fly just because of the
ludicrous crap involved, not about gun ownership, but about
treating me like a common criminal while the next guy, or
even an employee of the airline or catering might be the
terrorist, all because a plane load of sheeple couldn't
subdue two or three idiots with box cutters.

I just find it kind of amusing watching the guy thrashing around
trying to defend his connections between totally irrelevant things,
both with audio and politics. It's as if he lives in some
different world than the rest of us exist in.

I found him far from amusing a long time ago. I hope if I"m
that pig ignorant at 80 that I become food for a creature
which is more worthy of life. IF I wanted to listen to
political discussions by misguided fools I"d attend a tea
party meeting and listen to electric motor scooter riding
geriatrics crying about dismantling the system from which
they benefit the most. IF I wanted to tune into arguments
over proper word usage I"d hang out with a bunch of pedantic
English teachers. Anybody for discussins audio in this
group these days?




Richard webb,

replace anything before at with elspider
ON site audio in the southland: see www.gatasound.com



"We already know the answers -- we just haven't asked the
right questions." -- Edwin Land

[Scott Dorsey]

In article , wrote:
I would agree with that! yEs I support individual gun
ownership, my lady and I own guns, and I will defend my home
with mine. I prefer not to fly just because of the
ludicrous crap involved, not about gun ownership, but about
treating me like a common criminal while the next guy, or
even an employee of the airline or catering might be the
terrorist, all because a plane load of sheeple couldn't
subdue two or three idiots with box cutters.

Precisely. But that's only half of it, really.

When I was a kid, people used to get dressed up to fly somewhere, but now
they dress down for the flight so they don't mess up their good clothes.
That's a good summary of what has happened.

It's not just the TSA destroying the flying experience, it's also the
airlines. It's now cheaper and easier for me to take the train to NYC
from here (a seven hour trip) rather than fly by way of Atlanta with a
three-hour layover (a twelve-hour trip, when the second leg isn't overbooked
or cancelled). They don't charge for checked luggage on the train, and
I can carry my toolkit.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[William Sommerwerck]

Gun ownership and use...

The Bill of Rights DOES NOT grant specific rights to citizens. Rather, it
acknowledges particular rights that the government is obliged to respect.
And one of the Amendments says that the enumeration of certain rights does
not disparage others. If you can think of a particular right -- such as
privacy -- not mentioned in the BoR, the government is obliged to respect
it. The ownership and use of weapons for personal use is one such right.

Americans owned and used firearms long before the Revolution. It is a
"natural" right, as are dozens of others, subject only to "reasonable"
regulation for good reasons.

The weird phrasing is probably the outcome of the British having taken
weapons from Americans so they couldn't fight back. As militia members
usually supplied their own weapons...

Both "sides" in this issue are wrong. I've never seen such a lack of common
sense.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Sun, 3 Jul 2011 05:34:16 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

Gun ownership and use...

The Bill of Rights DOES NOT grant specific rights to citizens. Rather, it
acknowledges particular rights that the government is obliged to respect.
And one of the Amendments says that the enumeration of certain rights does
not disparage others. If you can think of a particular right -- such as
privacy -- not mentioned in the BoR, the government is obliged to respect
it. The ownership and use of weapons for personal use is one such right.

Americans owned and used firearms long before the Revolution. It is a
"natural" right, as are dozens of others, subject only to "reasonable"
regulation for good reasons.

The weird phrasing is probably the outcome of the British having taken
weapons from Americans so they couldn't fight back. As militia members
usually supplied their own weapons...

Both "sides" in this issue are wrong. I've never seen such a lack of common
sense.


Ok, here's another reading - with plenty of linguistic reason behind
it. Here's the second amendment:

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.

The second half is consequent upon the first. In other words, because
a well regulated militia is necessary, the people must be able to bear
arms. A militia is clearly no longer necessary, so the right to bear
arms has likewise lapsed.

d

[Scott Dorsey]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
The weird phrasing is probably the outcome of the British having taken
weapons from Americans so they couldn't fight back. As militia members
usually supplied their own weapons...

Both "sides" in this issue are wrong. I've never seen such a lack of common
sense.

Well, if in fact the purpose of the second amendment is to insure the
citizen's ability to revolt, then in fact it should cover the weapons of
war only. That means handguns probably wouldn't be protected, but private
ownership of nuclear weapons would be.

Mind you, I wouldn't mind owning a tank myself. Nobody gives you a parking
ticket in a tank. You can park anywhere you want.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[William Sommerwerck]

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...

Ok, here's another reading - with plenty of linguistic reason behind
it. Here's the second amendment:

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.

The second half is consequent upon the first. In other words, because
a well regulated militia is necessary, the people must be able to bear
arms. A militia is clearly no longer necessary, so the right to bear
arms has likewise lapsed.

This interpretation misses the point that the Bill of Rights is neither
proscriptive nor prescriptive. It does not grant rights, nor does it limit
rights.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...

Well, if in fact the purpose of the second amendment is to insure
the citizen's ability to revolt

It isn't. Militias are for protecting the state against external threats.
But there is the implication that people might need to protect themselves
against their own government.


then in fact it should cover the weapons of war only. That means
handguns probably wouldn't be protected, but private ownership
of nuclear weapons would be.

Handguns are used in war.


Mind you, I wouldn't mind owning a tank myself. Nobody gives
you a parking ticket in a tank. You can park anywhere you want.

Ever seen the James Garner film "Tank"?

[[email protected]]

On 2011-07-03 (ScottDorsey) said:
I prefer not to fly just because of the
ludicrous crap involved, not about gun ownership, but about
treating me like a common criminal while the next guy, or
even an employee of the airline or catering might be the
terrorist, all because a plane load of sheeple couldn't
subdue two or three idiots with box cutters.
Precisely. But that's only half of it, really.
When I was a kid, people used to get dressed up to fly somewhere,
but now they dress down for the flight so they don't mess up their
good clothes. That's a good summary of what has happened.
It's not just the TSA destroying the flying experience, it's also
the airlines. It's now cheaper and easier for me to take the train
to NYC from here (a seven hour trip) rather than fly by way of
Atlanta with a three-hour layover (a twelve-hour trip, when the
second leg isn't overbooked or cancelled). They don't charge for
checked luggage on the train, and I can carry my toolkit.

INdeed. wHy would I want to sacrifice some basic hand
tools? THey go in my backpack whenever I travel, wherever I
travel, just because. I"ll take the bus or the train if
available before I"ll fly. THen, while I've got that two
hour layover at the airport I"ve got to go outside the
security zone and back in if I want to find somewhere to
smoke. Scuse me I"m not going through all that bs, I"m not
a criminal, I"m not going to use my tools as weapons,
obviously I bought a friggin' ticket to get where I"m going
and not play stupid games.




Richard webb,

replace anything before at with elspider
ON site audio in the southland: see www.gatasound.com

[Scott Dorsey]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message

Well, if in fact the purpose of the second amendment is to insure
the citizen's ability to revolt

It isn't. Militias are for protecting the state against external threats.
But there is the implication that people might need to protect themselves
against their own government.

Yes. This is what happens when you let a bunch of revolutionaries who have
come to distrust government turn around and design a government. You get a
government with a lot of built-in limitations, if they do it right anyway.
The French sadly didn't manage to do it right. They're on what, their
fifth republic now?

then in fact it should cover the weapons of war only. That means
handguns probably wouldn't be protected, but private ownership
of nuclear weapons would be.

Handguns are used in war.

They issue them to officers to make them think they can actually do
something against the enemy. If they actually fire them, they get a
Bronze Star, unless they fire them at themselves.

Mind you, I wouldn't mind owning a tank myself. Nobody gives
you a parking ticket in a tank. You can park anywhere you want.

Ever seen the James Garner film "Tank"?

I have not, but anything with James Garner is probably worth watching.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

Handguns are used in war.

They issue them to officers to make them think they can actually do
something against the enemy. If they actually fire them, they get a
Bronze Star, unless they fire them at themselves.

Let us not have illusion when it comes to war and the beauty thereof, they
are also issued to be able to shoot at their own soldiers.

--scott

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[John Williamson]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message

Well, if in fact the purpose of the second amendment is to insure
the citizen's ability to revolt
It isn't. Militias are for protecting the state against external threats.
But there is the implication that people might need to protect themselves
against their own government.

Yes. This is what happens when you let a bunch of revolutionaries who have
come to distrust government turn around and design a government. You get a
government with a lot of built-in limitations, if they do it right anyway.
The French sadly didn't manage to do it right. They're on what, their
fifth republic now?

then in fact it should cover the weapons of war only. That means
handguns probably wouldn't be protected, but private ownership
of nuclear weapons would be.
Handguns are used in war.

They issue them to officers to make them think they can actually do
something against the enemy. If they actually fire them, they get a
Bronze Star, unless they fire them at themselves.

I was told by a Captain when I was in the Army that their main intended
use was to shoot deserters. I'm not *entirely* sure he was joking.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Bill Graham]

Peter Larsen wrote:
Bill Graham wrote:


There is a simple correlation between number of guns and number
of people dead from gunshots.

This is probably true, but I'd like to see some statistics.

There's no question that if more people carried concealed weapons,
there would be less crime -- but there would probably be more
murders.

I don't believe there would be more, "murders", but there would
certainly be more accidental deaths. but their would be benefits too.
In the same way that removing all the automobiles would result in
less accidental deaths, but nobody would be able to drive to work.
There are benefits and drawbacks to guns. I think the benefits
outweigh the drawbacks. The gun is a tool. It is for killing people.
Some people need badly to be killed, and when you run into one of
these, its very helpful if you have the tool with you. If there are
others who misuse the tool....Well, that will always happen with any
tool. But that shouldn't force those who know how to use it properly
to have to do without it. Why force the society to live down to its
lowest proper level? Lets go with catering to the enlightened ones
and hope the others will learn something.

Are you enlightned? - are you in any way more than you fellow man -
the right to the enlightened to kill the untermenschen is way far
along the road to fascism, way too far. Man should not allow any man
god status of any kind.

Thank you for providing such an excellent example of why society can
not allow the populace to take its own revenges. What is not quite so
well understood among politicians is that with the violence monopoly
comes the obligation to maintain it, ie. to provide credible law
enforcement.
Mind you, I would certainly own a gun if it was allowed here in
Denmark, but your line of reasoning to the effect that "the fit" have
the right and obligation to kill "the unfit" is the reasoning that
drives killing offspring because it falls in love with offspring of
people you do not like, or drove any genocide anywhere anytime. It is
just not acceptable.
Sir, there is something about democracy you have plain not understood.

Peter Larsen

"The fit" is your wording, and not mine. I speak of the criminals, and not
the fit. There is literally no other way to prevent crime. As I've said
before, the police can't prevent crime. There aren't nearly enough of them.
When a crime is committed against you, there is only one person there who
can prevent it.....You. The police can only hunt down the perpetrators after
the fact, but that doesn't help you any. As a practical matter, only you,
and your gun, can do the proper job. I'm really sorry that that's the way it
is, but I am accustomed to living in the real world, and not some mystical
happy-happy land that doesn't exist. I have carried a gun all of my life,
and had I not done so, I wouldn't be here making my case against you right
now.

[Bill Graham]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...
William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Peter Larsen" wrote in message
k...
Bill Graham wrote:

No. I live in a country where they make laws against carrying
guns, and where only honest people obey the law, so the only ones
who carry guns are the dishonest ones. Except, of course those few
honest ones who have some common sense. (And thank God for us.)

There is a simple correlation between number of guns and number
of people dead from gunshots.

This is probably true, but I'd like to see some statistics.
There's no question that if more people carried concealed weapons,
there would be less crime -- but there would probably be more
murders.

I don't believe there would be more, "murders", but there would
certainly be more accidental deaths. but their would be benefits
too. In the same way that removing all the automobiles would result
in less accidental deaths, but nobody would be able to drive to
work. There are benefits and drawbacks to guns. I think the benefits
outweigh the drawbacks. The gun is a tool. It is for killing people.
Some people need badly to be killed, and when you run into one of
these, its very helpful if you have the tool with you.

When someone who feels you should no longer inhabit this planet
visits your home... Will you as willingly cede your life to their
view of your non-importance?

Yes. The NRA will be glad to give you a sign that says, "There are no guns
in this house". You can attach it to your front door if you like and really
believe that there should be no guns in your house. I will keep my gun in
the drawer next to my bed, thanks, and my door, like my car, is free of
signs and bumper stickers.