Will everyone stop saying tic [Archive]

Bill Graham

June 29th 11, 07:48 PM

Gareth Magennis wrote:
> "Don Pearce" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 12:53:41 -0400, Frank
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> And could otherwise knowledgeable people please learn the difference
>>> between disk and disc?
>>>
>>> A disk, as in a hard disk drive (HDD) or a floppy (flexible)
>>> diskette, is magnetic.
>>>
>>> A disc, as in a CD (Compact Disc), DVD, or BD (Blu-ray Disc), is
>>> optical.
>>>
>>> In summary, if it's optical, it's disc. If it's magnetic, then it's
>>> disk.
>>>
>>> Thank you and have a good day!
>>
>> Well, I'm going to disagree. Disk and disc are simply alternative
>> spellings. More specifically disk is a US and Canada-preferred
>> spelling of the English word disc.
>>
>
>
> I assume the word comes from the latin "discus".
> Which supports your assumption that us Brits got there first, and you
> North Americans *******ised it. :)
>
>
> Gareth.

Yes. I don't think there is any official difference between, "disc" and
"disk". Any more than there is an official difference between, "Mike, and,
"Mic".

Frank

June 29th 11, 07:53 PM

On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 17:36:55 GMT, in 'rec.audio.pro',
in article <Re: Will everyone stop saying tic>,
(Don Pearce) wrote:

>On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 12:53:41 -0400, Frank
> wrote:
>
>>And could otherwise knowledgeable people please learn the difference
>>between disk and disc?
>>
>>A disk, as in a hard disk drive (HDD) or a floppy (flexible) diskette,
>>is magnetic.
>>
>>A disc, as in a CD (Compact Disc), DVD, or BD (Blu-ray Disc), is
>>optical.
>>
>>In summary, if it's optical, it's disc. If it's magnetic, then it's
>>disk.
>>
>>Thank you and have a good day!
>
>Well, I'm going to disagree. Disk and disc are simply alternative
>spellings. More specifically disk is a US and Canada-preferred
>spelling of the English word disc.
>
>If you want to distinguish between magnetic and optical discs (disks),
>you need to specify.

Well, I'm going to have to disagree with you, Don.

In my view, it's more than a simple case of alternative spellings.

Computer-related terms, and indeed most technical terms, cross
national (and cultural) boundaries.

The formal (and official) definition of CD is Compact Disc, not
Compact Disk.

The formal (and official) definition of BD is Blu-ray Disc, not
Blu-ray Disk. (And the correct abbreviation is BD, not BR.)

And surely you wouldn't write, discette, would you?

I can certainly accept American English and British English spelling
differences of words such as behavior and behaviour, color and colour,
center and centre, defense and defence, to name a few obvious
examples, but technical terms and expressions, for the sake of clarity
and good communication, should not be treated this way, especially in
the case of terms that have a more or less official definition (and
particular spelling) such as Blu-ray Disc.

And as far as hard disks are concerned, I guess that we have IBM to
thank (blame?) for that.

Back in the late 1960s/early 1970s, when I first became involved with
mainframe computer systems, I do know that since IBM was referring to
them as disks, that I certainly wasn't going to write reports and
memos with the spelling disc, and this despite the fact that I was
somewhat taken aback by the "disk" spelling that IBM had used in their
sales literature.

I vividly recall that every time I would read the word disk, my mind
would say, "no, the correct spelling is disc", but eventually I
trained myself to think and write disk. Sometimes, if you can't beat
them, you may as well join them. :)

Also, if I were to insert a Blu-ray Disc into my Blu-ray Disc player,
and were to write about it, I would write "disc" and not "disk".

P.S. Another one that bothers me is people with camcorders who say
that they're "filming".

If they were using a film-based motion picture camera, then the term
"filming" would be appropriate, but when using a camcorder, they're
"shooting video", not "filming", at least as far as I'm concerned.

Regards,

--
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].

Don Pearce[_3_]

June 29th 11, 08:03 PM

On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 11:42:59 -0700, "Bill Graham" >
wrote:

>Gareth Magennis 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" .
>>> --
>>> Tom McCreadie
>>>
>>> Live at The London Palindrome - ABBA
>>
>>
>> And PLEASE learn the difference between "their", "there" and
>> "they're". It will only take 2 minutes. Really.
>
>Is that 2 minutes, to minutes, too minutes or two minutes?
>
>You are fighting a losing battle. Mrs Hughes, my fifth grade English teacher
>is long gone, (I am 75) and very few people have learned much real English
>since then. Even the Supreme Court thinks the second amendment says, "Only
>the
>Army can keep and bear arms."
>
Whereas it actually says that the people can bear arms for the
purposes of maintaining a militia. No other reason is offered. Nothing
about defending oneself or simply looking hard.

d

Don Pearce[_3_]

June 29th 11, 08:05 PM

On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 14:53:47 -0400, Frank
> wrote:

>On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 17:36:55 GMT, in 'rec.audio.pro',
>in article <Re: Will everyone stop saying tic>,
(Don Pearce) wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 12:53:41 -0400, Frank
> wrote:
>>
>>>And could otherwise knowledgeable people please learn the difference
>>>between disk and disc?
>>>
>>>A disk, as in a hard disk drive (HDD) or a floppy (flexible) diskette,
>>>is magnetic.
>>>
>>>A disc, as in a CD (Compact Disc), DVD, or BD (Blu-ray Disc), is
>>>optical.
>>>
>>>In summary, if it's optical, it's disc. If it's magnetic, then it's
>>>disk.
>>>
>>>Thank you and have a good day!
>>
>>Well, I'm going to disagree. Disk and disc are simply alternative
>>spellings. More specifically disk is a US and Canada-preferred
>>spelling of the English word disc.
>>
>>If you want to distinguish between magnetic and optical discs (disks),
>>you need to specify.
>
>
>Well, I'm going to have to disagree with you, Don.
>
>In my view, it's more than a simple case of alternative spellings.
>
>Computer-related terms, and indeed most technical terms, cross
>national (and cultural) boundaries.
>
>The formal (and official) definition of CD is Compact Disc, not
>Compact Disk.
>
>The formal (and official) definition of BD is Blu-ray Disc, not
>Blu-ray Disk. (And the correct abbreviation is BD, not BR.)
>
>And surely you wouldn't write, discette, would you?
>
>I can certainly accept American English and British English spelling
>differences of words such as behavior and behaviour, color and colour,
>center and centre, defense and defence, to name a few obvious
>examples, but technical terms and expressions, for the sake of clarity
>and good communication, should not be treated this way, especially in
>the case of terms that have a more or less official definition (and
>particular spelling) such as Blu-ray Disc.
>
>And as far as hard disks are concerned, I guess that we have IBM to
>thank (blame?) for that.
>
>Back in the late 1960s/early 1970s, when I first became involved with
>mainframe computer systems, I do know that since IBM was referring to
>them as disks, that I certainly wasn't going to write reports and
>memos with the spelling disc, and this despite the fact that I was
>somewhat taken aback by the "disk" spelling that IBM had used in their
>sales literature.
>
>I vividly recall that every time I would read the word disk, my mind
>would say, "no, the correct spelling is disc", but eventually I
>trained myself to think and write disk. Sometimes, if you can't beat
>them, you may as well join them. :)
>
>Also, if I were to insert a Blu-ray Disc into my Blu-ray Disc player,
>and were to write about it, I would write "disc" and not "disk".
>

I have a hard disc in my computer.

>P.S. Another one that bothers me is people with camcorders who say
>that they're "filming".
>
>If they were using a film-based motion picture camera, then the term
>"filming" would be appropriate, but when using a camcorder, they're
>"shooting video", not "filming", at least as far as I'm concerned.
>
>Regards,

These words transcend technical accuracy - they are cultural. I Hoover
my house with a Dyson.

d

John Williamson

June 29th 11, 08:30 PM

Frank wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 17:36:55 GMT, in 'rec.audio.pro',
> in article <Re: Will everyone stop saying tic>,
> (Don Pearce) wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 12:53:41 -0400, Frank
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> And could otherwise knowledgeable people please learn the difference
>>> between disk and disc?
>>>
>>> A disk, as in a hard disk drive (HDD) or a floppy (flexible) diskette,
>>> is magnetic.
>>>
>>> A disc, as in a CD (Compact Disc), DVD, or BD (Blu-ray Disc), is
>>> optical.
>>>
>>> In summary, if it's optical, it's disc. If it's magnetic, then it's
>>> disk.
>>>
>>> Thank you and have a good day!
>> Well, I'm going to disagree. Disk and disc are simply alternative
>> spellings. More specifically disk is a US and Canada-preferred
>> spelling of the English word disc.
>>
>> If you want to distinguish between magnetic and optical discs (disks),
>> you need to specify.
>
>
> Well, I'm going to have to disagree with you, Don.
>
> In my view, it's more than a simple case of alternative spellings.
>
> Computer-related terms, and indeed most technical terms, cross
> national (and cultural) boundaries.
>
> The formal (and official) definition of CD is Compact Disc, not
> Compact Disk.
>
> The formal (and official) definition of BD is Blu-ray Disc, not
> Blu-ray Disk. (And the correct abbreviation is BD, not BR.)
>
> And surely you wouldn't write, discette, would you?
>
> I can certainly accept American English and British English spelling
> differences of words such as behavior and behaviour, color and colour,
> center and centre, defense and defence, to name a few obvious
> examples, but technical terms and expressions, for the sake of clarity
> and good communication, should not be treated this way, especially in
> the case of terms that have a more or less official definition (and
> particular spelling) such as Blu-ray Disc.
>
> And as far as hard disks are concerned, I guess that we have IBM to
> thank (blame?) for that.
>
> Back in the late 1960s/early 1970s, when I first became involved with
> mainframe computer systems, I do know that since IBM was referring to
> them as disks, that I certainly wasn't going to write reports and
> memos with the spelling disc, and this despite the fact that I was
> somewhat taken aback by the "disk" spelling that IBM had used in their
> sales literature.
>
> I vividly recall that every time I would read the word disk, my mind
> would say, "no, the correct spelling is disc", but eventually I
> trained myself to think and write disk. Sometimes, if you can't beat
> them, you may as well join them. :)
>
> Also, if I were to insert a Blu-ray Disc into my Blu-ray Disc player,
> and were to write about it, I would write "disc" and not "disk".
>
> P.S. Another one that bothers me is people with camcorders who say
> that they're "filming".
>
> If they were using a film-based motion picture camera, then the term
> "filming" would be appropriate, but when using a camcorder, they're
> "shooting video", not "filming", at least as far as I'm concerned.
>
They put their footage on a CF or SD card, too, sometimes.
--
Tciao for Now!

John.

Bill Graham

June 29th 11, 08:38 PM

Frank wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 17:36:55 GMT, in 'rec.audio.pro',
> in article <Re: Will everyone stop saying tic>,
> (Don Pearce) wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 12:53:41 -0400, Frank
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> And could otherwise knowledgeable people please learn the difference
>>> between disk and disc?
>>>
>>> A disk, as in a hard disk drive (HDD) or a floppy (flexible)
>>> diskette, is magnetic.
>>>
>>> A disc, as in a CD (Compact Disc), DVD, or BD (Blu-ray Disc), is
>>> optical.
>>>
>>> In summary, if it's optical, it's disc. If it's magnetic, then it's
>>> disk.
>>>
>>> Thank you and have a good day!
>>
>> Well, I'm going to disagree. Disk and disc are simply alternative
>> spellings. More specifically disk is a US and Canada-preferred
>> spelling of the English word disc.
>>
>> If you want to distinguish between magnetic and optical discs
>> (disks), you need to specify.
>
>
> Well, I'm going to have to disagree with you, Don.
>
> In my view, it's more than a simple case of alternative spellings.
>
> Computer-related terms, and indeed most technical terms, cross
> national (and cultural) boundaries.
>
> The formal (and official) definition of CD is Compact Disc, not
> Compact Disk.
>
> The formal (and official) definition of BD is Blu-ray Disc, not
> Blu-ray Disk. (And the correct abbreviation is BD, not BR.)
>
> And surely you wouldn't write, discette, would you?
>
> I can certainly accept American English and British English spelling
> differences of words such as behavior and behaviour, color and colour,
> center and centre, defense and defence, to name a few obvious
> examples, but technical terms and expressions, for the sake of clarity
> and good communication, should not be treated this way, especially in
> the case of terms that have a more or less official definition (and
> particular spelling) such as Blu-ray Disc.
>
> And as far as hard disks are concerned, I guess that we have IBM to
> thank (blame?) for that.
>
> Back in the late 1960s/early 1970s, when I first became involved with
> mainframe computer systems, I do know that since IBM was referring to
> them as disks, that I certainly wasn't going to write reports and
> memos with the spelling disc, and this despite the fact that I was
> somewhat taken aback by the "disk" spelling that IBM had used in their
> sales literature.
>
> I vividly recall that every time I would read the word disk, my mind
> would say, "no, the correct spelling is disc", but eventually I
> trained myself to think and write disk. Sometimes, if you can't beat
> them, you may as well join them. :)
>
> Also, if I were to insert a Blu-ray Disc into my Blu-ray Disc player,
> and were to write about it, I would write "disc" and not "disk".
>
> P.S. Another one that bothers me is people with camcorders who say
> that they're "filming".
>
> If they were using a film-based motion picture camera, then the term
> "filming" would be appropriate, but when using a camcorder, they're
> "shooting video", not "filming", at least as far as I'm concerned.
>
> Regards,

I guess you don't accept the word, "tape" as a euphamism for "record"
either. It is hard for me to change my language in some cases, because at
75, I have been hearing and using some of these terms for many years.

Don Pearce[_3_]

June 29th 11, 08:42 PM

On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 12:38:54 -0700, "Bill Graham" >
wrote:

>> If they were using a film-based motion picture camera, then the term
>> "filming" would be appropriate, but when using a camcorder, they're
>> "shooting video", not "filming", at least as far as I'm concerned.
>>
>> Regards,
>
>I guess you don't accept the word, "tape" as a euphamism for "record"
>either. It is hard for me to change my language in some cases, because at
>75, I have been hearing and using some of these terms for many years.

You say euphemism, but I presume you mean synonym. A CD is also a
record, but we only really use the word for a vinyl disc.

d

Bill Graham

June 29th 11, 08:46 PM

Don Pearce wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 11:42:59 -0700, "Bill Graham" >
> wrote:
>
>> Gareth Magennis 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" .
>>>> --
>>>> Tom McCreadie
>>>>
>>>> Live at The London Palindrome - ABBA
>>>
>>>
>>> And PLEASE learn the difference between "their", "there" and
>>> "they're". It will only take 2 minutes. Really.
>>
>> Is that 2 minutes, to minutes, too minutes or two minutes?
>>
>> You are fighting a losing battle. Mrs Hughes, my fifth grade English
>> teacher is long gone, (I am 75) and very few people have learned
>> much real English since then. Even the Supreme Court thinks the
>> second amendment says, "Only the
>> Army can keep and bear arms."
>>
> Whereas it actually says that the people can bear arms for the
> purposes of maintaining a militia. No other reason is offered. Nothing
> about defending oneself or simply looking hard.
>
> d

But the law doesn't say "for the purpose of maintaining a militia", and even
if it did, that wouldn't be a part of the law. The law says, "the right of
the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", which tells me
that the right to keep and bear arms has always been there, and the law
simply guarantees that it won't be changed. It all seems pretty obvious to
me, but then, I had Mrs. Hughes, and most peoplke didn't. At 75, I am
getting very tired of trying to teach English to all those who didn't have
a, Mrs. Hughes.

Also, why do people keep adding, "itself" to, "We have nothing to fear but
fear?"

Bill Graham

June 29th 11, 08:51 PM

Don Pearce wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 12:38:54 -0700, "Bill Graham" >
> wrote:
>
>>> If they were using a film-based motion picture camera, then the term
>>> "filming" would be appropriate, but when using a camcorder, they're
>>> "shooting video", not "filming", at least as far as I'm concerned.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>
>> I guess you don't accept the word, "tape" as a euphamism for "record"
>> either. It is hard for me to change my language in some cases,
>> because at 75, I have been hearing and using some of these terms for
>> many years.
>
> You say euphemism, but I presume you mean synonym. A CD is also a
> record, but we only really use the word for a vinyl disc.
>
> d

No. A synonym means the same thing. But tape doesn't mean record. It can be
a sticky strip used for sealing packages. It is a euphamism for record when
used in reference to what you do with a recording machine.

Don Pearce[_3_]

June 29th 11, 08:52 PM

On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 12:46:11 -0700, "Bill Graham" >
wrote:

>Don Pearce wrote:
>> On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 11:42:59 -0700, "Bill Graham" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Gareth Magennis 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" .
>>>>> --
>>>>> Tom McCreadie
>>>>>
>>>>> Live at The London Palindrome - ABBA
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And PLEASE learn the difference between "their", "there" and
>>>> "they're". It will only take 2 minutes. Really.
>>>
>>> Is that 2 minutes, to minutes, too minutes or two minutes?
>>>
>>> You are fighting a losing battle. Mrs Hughes, my fifth grade English
>>> teacher is long gone, (I am 75) and very few people have learned
>>> much real English since then. Even the Supreme Court thinks the
>>> second amendment says, "Only the
>>> Army can keep and bear arms."
>>>
>> Whereas it actually says that the people can bear arms for the
>> purposes of maintaining a militia. No other reason is offered. Nothing
>> about defending oneself or simply looking hard.
>>
>> d
>
>But the law doesn't say "for the purpose of maintaining a militia", and even
>if it did, that wouldn't be a part of the law. The law says, "the right of
>the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", which tells me
>that the right to keep and bear arms has always been there, and the law
>simply guarantees that it won't be changed. It all seems pretty obvious to
>me, but then, I had Mrs. Hughes, and most peoplke didn't. At 75, I am
>getting very tired of trying to teach English to all those who didn't have
>a, Mrs. Hughes.
>
>Also, why do people keep adding, "itself" to, "We have nothing to fear but
>fear?"

No, it most certainly does not say that. The exact wording is:

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.

So the right to bear arms exists solely in the context of maintaining
a well-regulated militia. If you are simply going to pretend that the
bits you don't like aren't there you may as well throw the
constitution out right now.

d

Don Pearce[_3_]

June 29th 11, 08:56 PM

On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 12:51:09 -0700, "Bill Graham" >
wrote:

>Don Pearce wrote:
>> On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 12:38:54 -0700, "Bill Graham" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> If they were using a film-based motion picture camera, then the term
>>>> "filming" would be appropriate, but when using a camcorder, they're
>>>> "shooting video", not "filming", at least as far as I'm concerned.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> I guess you don't accept the word, "tape" as a euphamism for "record"
>>> either. It is hard for me to change my language in some cases,
>>> because at 75, I have been hearing and using some of these terms for
>>> many years.
>>
>> You say euphemism, but I presume you mean synonym. A CD is also a
>> record, but we only really use the word for a vinyl disc.
>>
>> d
>
>No. A synonym means the same thing. But tape doesn't mean record. It can be
>a sticky strip used for sealing packages. It is a euphamism for record when
>used in reference to what you do with a recording machine.

A euphemism is a socially acceptable term used in place of one that
would give offence. "Tape" and "Record" are synonyms in this context
because they specifically do mean the same thing. It is the original
meanings that differ.

And it is euphemism, not euphamism.

d

Don Pearce[_3_]

June 29th 11, 09:01 PM

On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 15:58:43 -0400, "Soundhaspriority"
> wrote:

>
>
>"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...
>> How about prohibiting any and all uses of "impact" (verb or noun)? There
>> are
>> more-appropriate words.
>>
>We should keep our arguments on topic. RMS and peak power are the same.
>
>Bob Morein
>(310) 237-6511

The same as what? RMS isn't even a way of measuring power. It is
strictly for voltage and current.

d

Bill Graham

June 29th 11, 09:16 PM

Don Pearce wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 12:46:11 -0700, "Bill Graham" >
> wrote:
>
>> Don Pearce wrote:
>>> On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 11:42:59 -0700, "Bill Graham" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Gareth Magennis 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" .
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Tom McCreadie
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Live at The London Palindrome - ABBA
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And PLEASE learn the difference between "their", "there" and
>>>>> "they're". It will only take 2 minutes. Really.
>>>>
>>>> Is that 2 minutes, to minutes, too minutes or two minutes?
>>>>
>>>> You are fighting a losing battle. Mrs Hughes, my fifth grade
>>>> English teacher is long gone, (I am 75) and very few people have
>>>> learned much real English since then. Even the Supreme Court
>>>> thinks the second amendment says, "Only the
>>>> Army can keep and bear arms."
>>>>
>>> Whereas it actually says that the people can bear arms for the
>>> purposes of maintaining a militia. No other reason is offered.
>>> Nothing about defending oneself or simply looking hard.
>>>
>>> d
>>
>> But the law doesn't say "for the purpose of maintaining a militia",
>> and even if it did, that wouldn't be a part of the law. The law
>> says, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
>> infringed", which tells me that the right to keep and bear arms has
>> always been there, and the law simply guarantees that it won't be
>> changed. It all seems pretty obvious to me, but then, I had Mrs.
>> Hughes, and most peoplke didn't. At 75, I am getting very tired of
>> trying to teach English to all those who didn't have a, Mrs. Hughes.
>>
>> Also, why do people keep adding, "itself" to, "We have nothing to
>> fear but fear?"
>
> No, it most certainly does not say that. The exact wording is:
>
> 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.
>
> So the right to bear arms exists solely in the context of maintaining
> a well-regulated militia. If you are simply going to pretend that the
> bits you don't like aren't there you may as well throw the
> constitution out right now.
>
> d

I see you didn't have a Mrs. Hughes either. If it said, A well roasted side
of venison being necessary for the stomaches of the members of a free state,
the right of the peopole to keep and ber arms shall not be infringed, it
would still mean the same thing.

The law states that the people have a right, and this right shall not be
infringed. Why it shouldn't be infringed has nothing to do with the law. The
first part of the sentence tells me that they were talking about assault
weapons, and not hunting or target weapons, but even that is neither here
nor there. The law would still state that the people's right to keep and
bear arms will not be infringed.

Bill Graham

June 29th 11, 09:18 PM

Don Pearce wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 12:51:09 -0700, "Bill Graham" >
> wrote:
>
>> Don Pearce wrote:
>>> On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 12:38:54 -0700, "Bill Graham" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> If they were using a film-based motion picture camera, then the
>>>>> term "filming" would be appropriate, but when using a camcorder,
>>>>> they're "shooting video", not "filming", at least as far as I'm
>>>>> concerned.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> I guess you don't accept the word, "tape" as a euphamism for
>>>> "record" either. It is hard for me to change my language in some
>>>> cases, because at 75, I have been hearing and using some of these
>>>> terms for many years.
>>>
>>> You say euphemism, but I presume you mean synonym. A CD is also a
>>> record, but we only really use the word for a vinyl disc.
>>>
>>> d
>>
>> No. A synonym means the same thing. But tape doesn't mean record. It
>> can be a sticky strip used for sealing packages. It is a euphamism
>> for record when used in reference to what you do with a recording
>> machine.
>
> A euphemism is a socially acceptable term used in place of one that
> would give offence. "Tape" and "Record" are synonyms in this context
> because they specifically do mean the same thing. It is the original
> meanings that differ.
>
> And it is euphemism, not euphamism.
>
> d

Tape is a noun used in this context as a verb. (record) I still call it a
euphemism.

Don Pearce[_3_]

June 29th 11, 09:31 PM

On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 13:16:07 -0700, "Bill Graham" >
wrote:

>> No, it most certainly does not say that. The exact wording is:
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> So the right to bear arms exists solely in the context of maintaining
>> a well-regulated militia. If you are simply going to pretend that the
>> bits you don't like aren't there you may as well throw the
>> constitution out right now.
>>
>> d
>
>I see you didn't have a Mrs. Hughes either. If it said, A well roasted side
>of venison being necessary for the stomaches of the members of a free state,
>the right of the peopole to keep and ber arms shall not be infringed, it
>would still mean the same thing.
>
>The law states that the people have a right, and this right shall not be
>infringed. Why it shouldn't be infringed has nothing to do with the law. The
>first part of the sentence tells me that they were talking about assault
>weapons, and not hunting or target weapons, but even that is neither here
>nor there. The law would still state that the people's right to keep and
>bear arms will not be infringed.

You aren't a Christian by any chance, are you? You twist the
constitution the way a Christian does the bible.

d

Don Pearce[_3_]

June 29th 11, 09:33 PM

On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 13:18:58 -0700, "Bill Graham" >
wrote:

>Don Pearce wrote:
>> On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 12:51:09 -0700, "Bill Graham" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Don Pearce wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 12:38:54 -0700, "Bill Graham" >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> If they were using a film-based motion picture camera, then the
>>>>>> term "filming" would be appropriate, but when using a camcorder,
>>>>>> they're "shooting video", not "filming", at least as far as I'm
>>>>>> concerned.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> I guess you don't accept the word, "tape" as a euphamism for
>>>>> "record" either. It is hard for me to change my language in some
>>>>> cases, because at 75, I have been hearing and using some of these
>>>>> terms for many years.
>>>>
>>>> You say euphemism, but I presume you mean synonym. A CD is also a
>>>> record, but we only really use the word for a vinyl disc.
>>>>
>>>> d
>>>
>>> No. A synonym means the same thing. But tape doesn't mean record. It
>>> can be a sticky strip used for sealing packages. It is a euphamism
>>> for record when used in reference to what you do with a recording
>>> machine.
>>
>> A euphemism is a socially acceptable term used in place of one that
>> would give offence. "Tape" and "Record" are synonyms in this context
>> because they specifically do mean the same thing. It is the original
>> meanings that differ.
>>
>> And it is euphemism, not euphamism.
>>
>> d
>
>Tape is a noun used in this context as a verb. (record) I still call it a
>euphemism.

That can only be because despite being told you have no idea what a
euphemism is. Or is the word "record" offensive to the normal,
right-minded person?

d

Bill Graham

June 29th 11, 09:50 PM

Don Pearce wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 13:16:07 -0700, "Bill Graham" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>> No, it most certainly does not say that. The exact wording is:
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> So the right to bear arms exists solely in the context of
>>> maintaining a well-regulated militia. If you are simply going to
>>> pretend that the bits you don't like aren't there you may as well
>>> throw the constitution out right now.
>>>
>>> d
>>
>> I see you didn't have a Mrs. Hughes either. If it said, A well
>> roasted side of venison being necessary for the stomaches of the
>> members of a free state, the right of the peopole to keep and ber
>> arms shall not be infringed, it would still mean the same thing.
>>
>> The law states that the people have a right, and this right shall
>> not be infringed. Why it shouldn't be infringed has nothing to do
>> with the law. The first part of the sentence tells me that they were
>> talking about assault weapons, and not hunting or target weapons,
>> but even that is neither here nor there. The law would still state
>> that the people's right to keep and bear arms will not be infringed.
>
> You aren't a Christian by any chance, are you? You twist the
> constitution the way a Christian does the bible.
>
> d

A compound sentence does not necessarily have to contain some connection
between the two parts. If the second amendment stated, "The moon being made
of green cheese, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed." it would still be the same law, neither better nor worse, and I
would still interpret it the same way. The founding fathers had no
obligation to justify any law they wrote into the document. If anything, the
first half of the second amendment gives me a hint that they were probably
talking about assault weapons, or those weapons that some invading army
might use to launch an assault on the United States. But in any case, that
first half of the sentence needs not be there and doesn't have to have
anything to do with the second half, which states the law, and does have to
be there. Why this is so hard for liberals to understand beats the hell out
of me.

And, no. I am not a Christian. I am an atheist. Not by choice. But I just
find it impossible to believe that this whole universe, over 30 billion
light years in diameter, was created by some kindly old man in the sky that
hovers over my bunk at night making sure that I get a good night's sleep.
Besides, this, "kindly old man" sits idly by while millions of small
creatures freeze and starve to death every Winter, and I don't think my nap
time is very important when compared to that.

Bill Graham

June 29th 11, 09:57 PM

Don Pearce wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 13:18:58 -0700, "Bill Graham" >
> wrote:
>
>> Don Pearce wrote:
>>> On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 12:51:09 -0700, "Bill Graham" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Don Pearce wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 12:38:54 -0700, "Bill Graham"
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> If they were using a film-based motion picture camera, then the
>>>>>>> term "filming" would be appropriate, but when using a camcorder,
>>>>>>> they're "shooting video", not "filming", at least as far as I'm
>>>>>>> concerned.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I guess you don't accept the word, "tape" as a euphamism for
>>>>>> "record" either. It is hard for me to change my language in some
>>>>>> cases, because at 75, I have been hearing and using some of these
>>>>>> terms for many years.
>>>>>
>>>>> You say euphemism, but I presume you mean synonym. A CD is also a
>>>>> record, but we only really use the word for a vinyl disc.
>>>>>
>>>>> d
>>>>
>>>> No. A synonym means the same thing. But tape doesn't mean record.
>>>> It can be a sticky strip used for sealing packages. It is a
>>>> euphamism for record when used in reference to what you do with a
>>>> recording machine.
>>>
>>> A euphemism is a socially acceptable term used in place of one that
>>> would give offence. "Tape" and "Record" are synonyms in this context
>>> because they specifically do mean the same thing. It is the original
>>> meanings that differ.
>>>
>>> And it is euphemism, not euphamism.
>>>
>>> d
>>
>> Tape is a noun used in this context as a verb. (record) I still call
>> it a euphemism.
>
> That can only be because despite being told you have no idea what a
> euphemism is. Or is the word "record" offensive to the normal,
> right-minded person?
>
> d

"Some euphemisms are intended to amuse, while others are created to
mislead."

They are not all created to be politically correct.

bob[_5_]

June 29th 11, 10:05 PM

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!

Mike Rivers

June 29th 11, 10:14 PM

On 6/29/2011 12:53 PM, Frank wrote:

> A disk, as in a hard disk drive (HDD) or a floppy (flexible) diskette,
> is magnetic.
>
> A disc, as in a CD (Compact Disc), DVD, or BD (Blu-ray Disc), is
> optical.

Why is that? And what's something round and flat that's not
a piece of computer hardware, like a phonograph record, or
something in your back that slips? And why?

--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

Mike Rivers

June 29th 11, 10:15 PM

On 6/29/2011 2:48 PM, Bill Graham wrote:

> Yes. I don't think there is any official difference between,
> "disc" and "disk". Any more than there is an official
> difference between, "Mike, and, "Mic".

I think that "Compact Disc" is a trademark.

And don't call me "Mic."

--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

Mike Rivers

June 29th 11, 10:18 PM

On 6/29/2011 3:05 PM, Don Pearce wrote:

> These words transcend technical accuracy - they are cultural. I Hoover
> my house with a Dyson.

Someone asked me what kind of Garmin I had. Then I
discovered that it's common for New Englanders to call any
portable GPG a "Garmin."

My Garmin is a Tom Tom.

--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

Don Pearce[_3_]

June 29th 11, 10:20 PM

On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 13:50:51 -0700, "Bill Graham" >
wrote:

>Don Pearce wrote:
>> On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 13:16:07 -0700, "Bill Graham" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> No, it most certainly does not say that. The exact wording is:
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> So the right to bear arms exists solely in the context of
>>>> maintaining a well-regulated militia. If you are simply going to
>>>> pretend that the bits you don't like aren't there you may as well
>>>> throw the constitution out right now.
>>>>
>>>> d
>>>
>>> I see you didn't have a Mrs. Hughes either. If it said, A well
>>> roasted side of venison being necessary for the stomaches of the
>>> members of a free state, the right of the peopole to keep and ber
>>> arms shall not be infringed, it would still mean the same thing.
>>>
>>> The law states that the people have a right, and this right shall
>>> not be infringed. Why it shouldn't be infringed has nothing to do
>>> with the law. The first part of the sentence tells me that they were
>>> talking about assault weapons, and not hunting or target weapons,
>>> but even that is neither here nor there. The law would still state
>>> that the people's right to keep and bear arms will not be infringed.
>>
>> You aren't a Christian by any chance, are you? You twist the
>> constitution the way a Christian does the bible.
>>
>> d
>
>A compound sentence does not necessarily have to contain some connection
>between the two parts. If the second amendment stated, "The moon being made
>of green cheese, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
>infringed." it would still be the same law, neither better nor worse, and I
>would still interpret it the same way. The founding fathers had no
>obligation to justify any law they wrote into the document. If anything, the
>first half of the second amendment gives me a hint that they were probably
>talking about assault weapons, or those weapons that some invading army
>might use to launch an assault on the United States. But in any case, that
>first half of the sentence needs not be there and doesn't have to have
>anything to do with the second half, which states the law, and does have to
>be there. Why this is so hard for liberals to understand beats the hell out
>of me.
>
>And, no. I am not a Christian. I am an atheist. Not by choice. But I just
>find it impossible to believe that this whole universe, over 30 billion
>light years in diameter, was created by some kindly old man in the sky that
>hovers over my bunk at night making sure that I get a good night's sleep.
>Besides, this, "kindly old man" sits idly by while millions of small
>creatures freeze and starve to death every Winter, and I don't think my nap
>time is very important when compared to that.

So that first part was really put in just for fun, was it? Are you
aware that they deliberated at length over every dot and comma in that
document?

d

Mike Rivers

June 29th 11, 10:23 PM

On 6/29/2011 3:38 PM, Bill Graham wrote:

> I guess you don't accept the word, "tape" as a euphamism for
> "record" either.

I don't think "euphamism" is the right word for it, but I
frequently hear on radio news programs "Mr. Plybzxt
declined to be interviewed on tape." or "Let's roll the
tape." None of that stuff is tape based any more, not even
the reporter's field recorder.

I have started referring to "Recorder outputs" on a console,
though, rather than "Tape outputs," at least when I
remember. But they're still usually labeled "Tape."

--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

Don Pearce[_3_]

June 29th 11, 10:23 PM

On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 13:57:52 -0700, "Bill Graham" >
wrote:

>Don Pearce wrote:
>> On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 13:18:58 -0700, "Bill Graham" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Don Pearce wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 12:51:09 -0700, "Bill Graham" >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Don Pearce wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 12:38:54 -0700, "Bill Graham"
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If they were using a film-based motion picture camera, then the
>>>>>>>> term "filming" would be appropriate, but when using a camcorder,
>>>>>>>> they're "shooting video", not "filming", at least as far as I'm
>>>>>>>> concerned.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I guess you don't accept the word, "tape" as a euphamism for
>>>>>>> "record" either. It is hard for me to change my language in some
>>>>>>> cases, because at 75, I have been hearing and using some of these
>>>>>>> terms for many years.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You say euphemism, but I presume you mean synonym. A CD is also a
>>>>>> record, but we only really use the word for a vinyl disc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> d
>>>>>
>>>>> No. A synonym means the same thing. But tape doesn't mean record.
>>>>> It can be a sticky strip used for sealing packages. It is a
>>>>> euphamism for record when used in reference to what you do with a
>>>>> recording machine.
>>>>
>>>> A euphemism is a socially acceptable term used in place of one that
>>>> would give offence. "Tape" and "Record" are synonyms in this context
>>>> because they specifically do mean the same thing. It is the original
>>>> meanings that differ.
>>>>
>>>> And it is euphemism, not euphamism.
>>>>
>>>> d
>>>
>>> Tape is a noun used in this context as a verb. (record) I still call
>>> it a euphemism.
>>
>> That can only be because despite being told you have no idea what a
>> euphemism is. Or is the word "record" offensive to the normal,
>> right-minded person?
>>
>> d
>
>"Some euphemisms are intended to amuse, while others are created to
>mislead."
>
>They are not all created to be politically correct.

Amuse or mislead. Which is it, do you suppose?

And here is yet another phrase you don't understand. The term
politically correct is an ironic one meaning the exact opposite of
itself. Politically correct means actually a lie, but politically
acceptable to the listener. As in "It is not actually correct, but it
is politically correct".

d

Gareth Magennis

June 29th 11, 10:24 PM

"Bill Graham" > wrote in message
...
> Gareth Magennis wrote:
>> "Don Pearce" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 12:53:41 -0400, Frank
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> And could otherwise knowledgeable people please learn the difference
>>>> between disk and disc?
>>>>
>>>> A disk, as in a hard disk drive (HDD) or a floppy (flexible)
>>>> diskette, is magnetic.
>>>>
>>>> A disc, as in a CD (Compact Disc), DVD, or BD (Blu-ray Disc), is
>>>> optical.
>>>>
>>>> In summary, if it's optical, it's disc. If it's magnetic, then it's
>>>> disk.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you and have a good day!
>>>
>>> Well, I'm going to disagree. Disk and disc are simply alternative
>>> spellings. More specifically disk is a US and Canada-preferred
>>> spelling of the English word disc.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I assume the word comes from the latin "discus".
>> Which supports your assumption that us Brits got there first, and you
>> North Americans *******ised it. :)
>>
>>
>> Gareth.
>
> Yes. I don't think there is any official difference between, "disc" and
> "disk". Any more than there is an official difference between, "Mike, and,
> "Mic".

"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.

Why do that?

Gareth.

William Sommerwerck

June 29th 11, 10:25 PM

> No, it most certainly does not say that. The exact wording is:

> 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.

> So the right to bear arms exists solely in the context of
> maintaining a well-regulated militia.

No, it doesn't. People have a right to keep and bear arms, simply as one of
hundreds of rights that people naturally have. The government also has the
right to make reasonable restrictions on the ownership and use of firearms.

Unfortunately, neither side wants to understand these things.

Don Pearce[_3_]

June 29th 11, 10:26 PM

On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 17:18:36 -0400, Mike Rivers >
wrote:

>On 6/29/2011 3:05 PM, Don Pearce wrote:
>
>> These words transcend technical accuracy - they are cultural. I Hoover
>> my house with a Dyson.
>
>Someone asked me what kind of Garmin I had. Then I
>discovered that it's common for New Englanders to call any
>portable GPG a "Garmin."
>
>My Garmin is a Tom Tom.

I presume that means Garmin is bigger than Tomtom over there. I think
it is probably the other way around this side of the pond. Luckily
here nobody uses a proper name - it is just a satnav.

d

Gareth Magennis

June 29th 11, 10:36 PM

"Don Pearce" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 17:18:36 -0400, Mike Rivers >
> wrote:
>
>>On 6/29/2011 3:05 PM, Don Pearce wrote:
>>
>>> These words transcend technical accuracy - they are cultural. I Hoover
>>> my house with a Dyson.
>>
>>Someone asked me what kind of Garmin I had. Then I
>>discovered that it's common for New Englanders to call any
>>portable GPG a "Garmin."
>>
>>My Garmin is a Tom Tom.
>
> I presume that means Garmin is bigger than Tomtom over there. I think
> it is probably the other way around this side of the pond. Luckily
> here nobody uses a proper name - it is just a satnav.
>
> d

That may be because "Tomtom" is the kind of thing that comes out of a 5 year
olds mouth, and probably means a part of human anatomy, whereas
"Satnav" sounds so much more grown up and worth the money we have spent on
it.

Gareth.

Ed Anson

June 29th 11, 11:22 PM

On 6/29/11 2:53 PM, Frank wrote:
> P.S. Another one that bothers me is people with camcorders who say
> that they're "filming".
>
> If they were using a film-based motion picture camera, then the term
> "filming" would be appropriate, but when using a camcorder, they're
> "shooting video", not "filming", at least as far as I'm concerned.

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?

Frank

June 30th 11, 12:02 AM

On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 17:14:25 -0400, in 'rec.audio.pro',
in article <Re: Will everyone stop saying tic>,
Mike Rivers > wrote:

>On 6/29/2011 12:53 PM, Frank wrote:
>
>> A disk, as in a hard disk drive (HDD) or a floppy (flexible) diskette,
>> is magnetic.
>>
>> A disc, as in a CD (Compact Disc), DVD, or BD (Blu-ray Disc), is
>> optical.
>
>Why is that?

In the case of the CD, it's because Philips and Sony decided that it
would be a "c" and not a "k". In the case of the hard disk drive (also
called a "fixed disk drive" by IBM when referring to their personal
computer) and the diskette, it's because IBM decreed it.

>And what's something round and flat that's not
>a piece of computer hardware, like a phonograph record,

That would be a disc, named after those Greek folks and the disci that
they were so fond of throwing.

>or something in your back that slips? And why?

That would be a disc, but I don't wear slips any longer. :)

--
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].

Gareth Magennis

June 30th 11, 12:23 AM

"Frank" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 17:14:25 -0400, in 'rec.audio.pro',
> in article <Re: Will everyone stop saying tic>,
> Mike Rivers > wrote:
>
>>On 6/29/2011 12:53 PM, Frank wrote:
>>
>>> A disk, as in a hard disk drive (HDD) or a floppy (flexible) diskette,
>>> is magnetic.
>>>
>>> A disc, as in a CD (Compact Disc), DVD, or BD (Blu-ray Disc), is
>>> optical.
>>
>>Why is that?
>
> In the case of the CD, it's because Philips and Sony decided that it
> would be a "c" and not a "k". In the case of the hard disk drive (also
> called a "fixed disk drive" by IBM when referring to their personal
> computer) and the diskette, it's because IBM decreed it.
>
>>And what's something round and flat that's not
>>a piece of computer hardware, like a phonograph record,
>
> That would be a disc, named after those Greek folks and the disci that
> they were so fond of throwing.
>

The Greeks had their own alphabet., and their own unique way of pronouncing
it.
Discus is a Latin noun.

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.

Gareth.

Frank

June 30th 11, 12:34 AM

On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 12:38:54 -0700, in 'rec.audio.pro',
in article <Re: Will everyone stop saying tic>,
"Bill Graham" > wrote:

>Frank wrote:
>> On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 17:36:55 GMT, in 'rec.audio.pro',
>> in article <Re: Will everyone stop saying tic>,
>> (Don Pearce) wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 12:53:41 -0400, Frank
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> And could otherwise knowledgeable people please learn the difference
>>>> between disk and disc?
>>>>
>>>> A disk, as in a hard disk drive (HDD) or a floppy (flexible)
>>>> diskette, is magnetic.
>>>>
>>>> A disc, as in a CD (Compact Disc), DVD, or BD (Blu-ray Disc), is
>>>> optical.
>>>>
>>>> In summary, if it's optical, it's disc. If it's magnetic, then it's
>>>> disk.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you and have a good day!
>>>
>>> Well, I'm going to disagree. Disk and disc are simply alternative
>>> spellings. More specifically disk is a US and Canada-preferred
>>> spelling of the English word disc.
>>>
>>> If you want to distinguish between magnetic and optical discs
>>> (disks), you need to specify.
>>
>>
>> Well, I'm going to have to disagree with you, Don.
>>
>> In my view, it's more than a simple case of alternative spellings.
>>
>> Computer-related terms, and indeed most technical terms, cross
>> national (and cultural) boundaries.
>>
>> The formal (and official) definition of CD is Compact Disc, not
>> Compact Disk.
>>
>> The formal (and official) definition of BD is Blu-ray Disc, not
>> Blu-ray Disk. (And the correct abbreviation is BD, not BR.)
>>
>> And surely you wouldn't write, discette, would you?
>>
>> I can certainly accept American English and British English spelling
>> differences of words such as behavior and behaviour, color and colour,
>> center and centre, defense and defence, to name a few obvious
>> examples, but technical terms and expressions, for the sake of clarity
>> and good communication, should not be treated this way, especially in
>> the case of terms that have a more or less official definition (and
>> particular spelling) such as Blu-ray Disc.
>>
>> And as far as hard disks are concerned, I guess that we have IBM to
>> thank (blame?) for that.
>>
>> Back in the late 1960s/early 1970s, when I first became involved with
>> mainframe computer systems, I do know that since IBM was referring to
>> them as disks, that I certainly wasn't going to write reports and
>> memos with the spelling disc, and this despite the fact that I was
>> somewhat taken aback by the "disk" spelling that IBM had used in their
>> sales literature.
>>
>> I vividly recall that every time I would read the word disk, my mind
>> would say, "no, the correct spelling is disc", but eventually I
>> trained myself to think and write disk. Sometimes, if you can't beat
>> them, you may as well join them. :)
>>
>> Also, if I were to insert a Blu-ray Disc into my Blu-ray Disc player,
>> and were to write about it, I would write "disc" and not "disk".
>>
>> P.S. Another one that bothers me is people with camcorders who say
>> that they're "filming".
>>
>> If they were using a film-based motion picture camera, then the term
>> "filming" would be appropriate, but when using a camcorder, they're
>> "shooting video", not "filming", at least as far as I'm concerned.
>>
>> Regards,
>
>I guess you don't accept the word, "tape" as a euphamism for "record"
>either.

I would use the term "tape" if and only if a tape recording were to be
made, in which case I might say, "Let's tape this!".

If some other type of recording media were to be used, such as a hard
disk drive or a flash memory card, I would say, "Let's record this!".

Yes, I would actually think before speaking, and choose my words
carefully.

>It is hard for me to change my language in some cases, because at
>75, I have been hearing and using some of these terms for many years.

I'm certainly not going to pick on older people, but I have
encountered a few recently who refer to almost any form of recorded
media (aside from a phonograph record), such as a CD or DVD, as a
"tape". Drives me nuts, especially when they send me an e-mail message
asking if I've received the tape that they sent to me.

--
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].

Frank

June 30th 11, 12:42 AM

On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 00:23:53 +0100, in 'rec.audio.pro',
in article <Re: Will everyone stop saying tic>,
"Gareth Magennis" > wrote:

>"Frank" > wrote in message
...
>> On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 17:14:25 -0400, in 'rec.audio.pro',
>> in article <Re: Will everyone stop saying tic>,
>> Mike Rivers > wrote:
>>
>>>On 6/29/2011 12:53 PM, Frank wrote:
>>>
>>>> A disk, as in a hard disk drive (HDD) or a floppy (flexible) diskette,
>>>> is magnetic.
>>>>
>>>> A disc, as in a CD (Compact Disc), DVD, or BD (Blu-ray Disc), is
>>>> optical.
>>>
>>>Why is that?
>>
>> In the case of the CD, it's because Philips and Sony decided that it
>> would be a "c" and not a "k". In the case of the hard disk drive (also
>> called a "fixed disk drive" by IBM when referring to their personal
>> computer) and the diskette, it's because IBM decreed it.
>>
>>>And what's something round and flat that's not
>>>a piece of computer hardware, like a phonograph record,
>>
>> That would be a disc, named after those Greek folks and the disci that
>> they were so fond of throwing.
>>
>
>
>The Greeks had their own alphabet.,

I believe that they still do, even when busy rioting in the street.

>and their own unique way of pronouncing it.

They speak with a Greek accent, I would assume.

>Discus is a Latin noun.

discus
n pl discuses, disci
from Latin, from Greek diskos from dikein to throw

>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.

You should have tried archery. :)

--
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].

[email protected]

June 30th 11, 01:02 AM

MIke Rivers writes,

>I don't think "euphamism" is the right word for it, but I
>frequently hear on radio news programs "Mr. Plybzxt
>declined to be interviewed on tape." or "Let's roll the
>tape." None of that stuff is tape based any more, not even
>the reporter's field recorder.
>I have started referring to "Recorder outputs" on a console,
>though, rather than "Tape outputs," at least when I
>remember. But they're still usually labeled "Tape."

INdeed they are, and I'll refer to "tape" even though it's
captured on a hard drive. My signal to talent is also still
"rolling."

Btw, that "Garmin" for gps must be an east coast thing.
Around here they're still a GPS.

Richard webb,

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

Bill Graham

June 30th 11, 05:45 AM

Don Pearce wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 13:50:51 -0700, "Bill Graham" >
> wrote:
>
>> Don Pearce wrote:
>>> On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 13:16:07 -0700, "Bill Graham" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> No, it most certainly does not say that. The exact wording is:
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> So the right to bear arms exists solely in the context of
>>>>> maintaining a well-regulated militia. If you are simply going to
>>>>> pretend that the bits you don't like aren't there you may as well
>>>>> throw the constitution out right now.
>>>>>
>>>>> d
>>>>
>>>> I see you didn't have a Mrs. Hughes either. If it said, A well
>>>> roasted side of venison being necessary for the stomaches of the
>>>> members of a free state, the right of the peopole to keep and ber
>>>> arms shall not be infringed, it would still mean the same thing.
>>>>
>>>> The law states that the people have a right, and this right shall
>>>> not be infringed. Why it shouldn't be infringed has nothing to do
>>>> with the law. The first part of the sentence tells me that they
>>>> were talking about assault weapons, and not hunting or target
>>>> weapons, but even that is neither here nor there. The law would
>>>> still state that the people's right to keep and bear arms will not
>>>> be infringed.
>>>
>>> You aren't a Christian by any chance, are you? You twist the
>>> constitution the way a Christian does the bible.
>>>
>>> d
>>
>> A compound sentence does not necessarily have to contain some
>> connection between the two parts. If the second amendment stated,
>> "The moon being made of green cheese, the right of the people to
>> keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." it would still be the
>> same law, neither better nor worse, and I would still interpret it
>> the same way. The founding fathers had no obligation to justify any
>> law they wrote into the document. If anything, the first half of the
>> second amendment gives me a hint that they were probably talking
>> about assault weapons, or those weapons that some invading army
>> might use to launch an assault on the United States. But in any
>> case, that first half of the sentence needs not be there and doesn't
>> have to have anything to do with the second half, which states the
>> law, and does have to be there. Why this is so hard for liberals to
>> understand beats the hell out of me.
>>
>> And, no. I am not a Christian. I am an atheist. Not by choice. But I
>> just find it impossible to believe that this whole universe, over 30
>> billion light years in diameter, was created by some kindly old man
>> in the sky that hovers over my bunk at night making sure that I get
>> a good night's sleep. Besides, this, "kindly old man" sits idly by
>> while millions of small creatures freeze and starve to death every
>> Winter, and I don't think my nap time is very important when
>> compared to that.
>
> So that first part was really put in just for fun, was it? Are you
> aware that they deliberated at length over every dot and comma in that
> document?
>
> d

No. In my opinion it was placed there to promote the keeping of firearms as
a deterrent against foreign invasion, so the liberals banned assault
weapons, in keeping with their usual lack of common sense. The founding
fathers were talking about assault weapons when they wrote the amendment.
Also, if they agonized over every word, then you must know when they said
"The people" they weren't talking about the army. 'They knew full well what
is meant by, "the people". The people is you and me, buddy.

Bill Graham

June 30th 11, 05:50 AM

Don Pearce wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 13:57:52 -0700, "Bill Graham" >
> wrote:
>
>> Don Pearce wrote:
>>> On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 13:18:58 -0700, "Bill Graham" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Don Pearce wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 12:51:09 -0700, "Bill Graham"
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Don Pearce wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 12:38:54 -0700, "Bill Graham"
>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If they were using a film-based motion picture camera, then
>>>>>>>>> the term "filming" would be appropriate, but when using a
>>>>>>>>> camcorder, they're "shooting video", not "filming", at least
>>>>>>>>> as far as I'm concerned.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I guess you don't accept the word, "tape" as a euphamism for
>>>>>>>> "record" either. It is hard for me to change my language in
>>>>>>>> some cases, because at 75, I have been hearing and using some
>>>>>>>> of these terms for many years.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You say euphemism, but I presume you mean synonym. A CD is also
>>>>>>> a record, but we only really use the word for a vinyl disc.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> d
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No. A synonym means the same thing. But tape doesn't mean record.
>>>>>> It can be a sticky strip used for sealing packages. It is a
>>>>>> euphamism for record when used in reference to what you do with a
>>>>>> recording machine.
>>>>>
>>>>> A euphemism is a socially acceptable term used in place of one
>>>>> that would give offence. "Tape" and "Record" are synonyms in this
>>>>> context because they specifically do mean the same thing. It is
>>>>> the original meanings that differ.
>>>>>
>>>>> And it is euphemism, not euphamism.
>>>>>
>>>>> d
>>>>
>>>> Tape is a noun used in this context as a verb. (record) I still
>>>> call it a euphemism.
>>>
>>> That can only be because despite being told you have no idea what a
>>> euphemism is. Or is the word "record" offensive to the normal,
>>> right-minded person?
>>>
>>> d
>>
>> "Some euphemisms are intended to amuse, while others are created to
>> mislead."
>>
>> They are not all created to be politically correct.
>
> Amuse or mislead. Which is it, do you suppose?
>
> And here is yet another phrase you don't understand. The term
> politically correct is an ironic one meaning the exact opposite of
> itself. Politically correct means actually a lie, but politically
> acceptable to the listener. As in "It is not actually correct, but it
> is politically correct".
>
> d

I have been speaking (and writing) English all of my life, and the only one
who has a problem with my use of it to date is you. - I think I will
continue to speak and write it the way I do, thanks.....

Don Pearce[_3_]

June 30th 11, 05:51 AM

On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 21:45:44 -0700, "Bill Graham" >
wrote:

>> So that first part was really put in just for fun, was it? Are you
>> aware that they deliberated at length over every dot and comma in that
>> document?
>>
>> d
>
>No. In my opinion it was placed there to promote the keeping of firearms as
>a deterrent against foreign invasion, so the liberals banned assault
>weapons, in keeping with their usual lack of common sense. The founding
>fathers were talking about assault weapons when they wrote the amendment.
>Also, if they agonized over every word, then you must know when they said
>"The people" they weren't talking about the army. 'They knew full well what
>is meant by, "the people". The people is you and me, buddy.

So now the constitution says "firearms", does it? Strange that I can't
seem to find that in the original text. As for assault weapons, your
imagination is growing ever more crazed. Stop trying to twist your
constitution to fit your personal prejudice; it doesn't work.

d

Don Pearce[_3_]

June 30th 11, 05:53 AM

On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 21:50:22 -0700, "Bill Graham" >
wrote:

>Don Pearce wrote:
>> On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 13:57:52 -0700, "Bill Graham" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Don Pearce wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 13:18:58 -0700, "Bill Graham" >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Don Pearce wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 12:51:09 -0700, "Bill Graham"
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Don Pearce wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 12:38:54 -0700, "Bill Graham"
>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If they were using a film-based motion picture camera, then
>>>>>>>>>> the term "filming" would be appropriate, but when using a
>>>>>>>>>> camcorder, they're "shooting video", not "filming", at least
>>>>>>>>>> as far as I'm concerned.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I guess you don't accept the word, "tape" as a euphamism for
>>>>>>>>> "record" either. It is hard for me to change my language in
>>>>>>>>> some cases, because at 75, I have been hearing and using some
>>>>>>>>> of these terms for many years.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You say euphemism, but I presume you mean synonym. A CD is also
>>>>>>>> a record, but we only really use the word for a vinyl disc.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> d
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No. A synonym means the same thing. But tape doesn't mean record.
>>>>>>> It can be a sticky strip used for sealing packages. It is a
>>>>>>> euphamism for record when used in reference to what you do with a
>>>>>>> recording machine.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A euphemism is a socially acceptable term used in place of one
>>>>>> that would give offence. "Tape" and "Record" are synonyms in this
>>>>>> context because they specifically do mean the same thing. It is
>>>>>> the original meanings that differ.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And it is euphemism, not euphamism.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> d
>>>>>
>>>>> Tape is a noun used in this context as a verb. (record) I still
>>>>> call it a euphemism.
>>>>
>>>> That can only be because despite being told you have no idea what a
>>>> euphemism is. Or is the word "record" offensive to the normal,
>>>> right-minded person?
>>>>
>>>> d
>>>
>>> "Some euphemisms are intended to amuse, while others are created to
>>> mislead."
>>>
>>> They are not all created to be politically correct.
>>
>> Amuse or mislead. Which is it, do you suppose?
>>
>> And here is yet another phrase you don't understand. The term
>> politically correct is an ironic one meaning the exact opposite of
>> itself. Politically correct means actually a lie, but politically
>> acceptable to the listener. As in "It is not actually correct, but it
>> is politically correct".
>>
>> d
>
>I have been speaking (and writing) English all of my life, and the only one
>who has a problem with my use of it to date is you. - I think I will
>continue to speak and write it the way I do, thanks.....

Of course you will. Far too late to change now.

d

Bill Graham

June 30th 11, 05:56 AM

William Sommerwerck wrote:
>> No, it most certainly does not say that. The exact wording is:
>
>> 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.
>
>> So the right to bear arms exists solely in the context of
>> maintaining a well-regulated militia.
>
> No, it doesn't. People have a right to keep and bear arms, simply as
> one of hundreds of rights that people naturally have. The government
> also has the right to make reasonable restrictions on the ownership
> and use of firearms.
>
> Unfortunately, neither side wants to understand these things.

Yes. I have a problem with your, "reasonable restrictions" and how they
relate to, "not be infringed". It is perfectly reasonable to argue over
these two things and how they contradict with each other. IMO, restrictions
against my carrying concealed weapons is an infringement of my 2nd amendment
rights, so I have defied the local laws and carried concealed all of my
adult life. Not only do such restrictions defy the 2nd amendment, but they
are unenforceable to boot, and I naturally break unenforceable laws. (Its
the libertarian in me)

Don Pearce[_3_]

June 30th 11, 06:07 AM

On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 21:56:13 -0700, "Bill Graham" >
wrote:

>William Sommerwerck wrote:
>>> No, it most certainly does not say that. The exact wording is:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>> So the right to bear arms exists solely in the context of
>>> maintaining a well-regulated militia.
>>
>> No, it doesn't. People have a right to keep and bear arms, simply as
>> one of hundreds of rights that people naturally have. The government
>> also has the right to make reasonable restrictions on the ownership
>> and use of firearms.
>>
>> Unfortunately, neither side wants to understand these things.
>
>Yes. I have a problem with your, "reasonable restrictions" and how they
>relate to, "not be infringed". It is perfectly reasonable to argue over
>these two things and how they contradict with each other. IMO, restrictions
>against my carrying concealed weapons is an infringement of my 2nd amendment
>rights, so I have defied the local laws and carried concealed all of my
>adult life. Not only do such restrictions defy the 2nd amendment, but they
>are unenforceable to boot, and I naturally break unenforceable laws. (Its
>the libertarian in me)

So now the second amendment - in your head - talks about carrying
concealed weapons. Is that how you believe a militia works? You carry
your pike and sword concealed so the invading forces think you are
unarmed, then whip them out at the last moment.

As opposed, of course, to forming a defensive line with weapons ready
and aimed.

d

Bill Graham

June 30th 11, 06:11 AM

Frank wrote:
> I'm certainly not going to pick on older people, but I have
> encountered a few recently who refer to almost any form of recorded
> media (aside from a phonograph record), such as a CD or DVD, as a
> "tape". Drives me nuts, especially when they send me an e-mail message
> asking if I've received the tape that they sent to me.

If you understood what they meant, and they understand what you mean, then
there is no poroblem as far as I am concerned. After all, that is the
purpose of language. But you are certainly encouraged to be as correct as
possible, especially when you write something for general consumption......

Bill Graham

June 30th 11, 06:19 AM

Don Pearce wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 21:45:44 -0700, "Bill Graham" >
> wrote:
>
>>> So that first part was really put in just for fun, was it? Are you
>>> aware that they deliberated at length over every dot and comma in
>>> that document?
>>>
>>> d
>>
>> No. In my opinion it was placed there to promote the keeping of
>> firearms as a deterrent against foreign invasion, so the liberals
>> banned assault weapons, in keeping with their usual lack of common
>> sense. The founding fathers were talking about assault weapons when
>> they wrote the amendment. Also, if they agonized over every word,
>> then you must know when they said "The people" they weren't talking
>> about the army. 'They knew full well what is meant by, "the people".
>> The people is you and me, buddy.
>
> So now the constitution says "firearms", does it? Strange that I can't
> seem to find that in the original text. As for assault weapons, your
> imagination is growing ever more crazed. Stop trying to twist your
> constitution to fit your personal prejudice; it doesn't work.
>
> d
Oh, give me a break! It works fine for me. You are the one who attached so
much significance to the first half of the 2nd amendment sentence. So what
do you think it means? I think they were worried about foreign invaders.
That isn't, "twisting the meaning to suit my own ends". If I were to do
that, I would say the founding fathers were talking about personal
protection, and they wanted every individual to carry a concealed handgun,
because that's what I use the amendment for, and have for my entire life. I
carry concealed because I think I have that right, and because there is no
way to stop me. IOW, the laws against concealed carry are unenforceable, and
I live to break unenforceable laws.......

Don Pearce[_3_]

June 30th 11, 06:24 AM

On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 22:19:03 -0700, "Bill Graham" >
wrote:

>Don Pearce wrote:
>> On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 21:45:44 -0700, "Bill Graham" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> So that first part was really put in just for fun, was it? Are you
>>>> aware that they deliberated at length over every dot and comma in
>>>> that document?
>>>>
>>>> d
>>>
>>> No. In my opinion it was placed there to promote the keeping of
>>> firearms as a deterrent against foreign invasion, so the liberals
>>> banned assault weapons, in keeping with their usual lack of common
>>> sense. The founding fathers were talking about assault weapons when
>>> they wrote the amendment. Also, if they agonized over every word,
>>> then you must know when they said "The people" they weren't talking
>>> about the army. 'They knew full well what is meant by, "the people".
>>> The people is you and me, buddy.
>>
>> So now the constitution says "firearms", does it? Strange that I can't
>> seem to find that in the original text. As for assault weapons, your
>> imagination is growing ever more crazed. Stop trying to twist your
>> constitution to fit your personal prejudice; it doesn't work.
>>
>> d
>Oh, give me a break! It works fine for me. You are the one who attached so
>much significance to the first half of the 2nd amendment sentence. So what
>do you think it means? I think they were worried about foreign invaders.
>That isn't, "twisting the meaning to suit my own ends". If I were to do
>that, I would say the founding fathers were talking about personal
>protection, and they wanted every individual to carry a concealed handgun,
>because that's what I use the amendment for, and have for my entire life. I
>carry concealed because I think I have that right, and because there is no
>way to stop me. IOW, the laws against concealed carry are unenforceable, and
>I live to break unenforceable laws.......

So in the absence of any foreign invaders against whom you might have
to bear arms as part of a militia, you have decided to carry a
concealed gun to be used against your fellow citizens when the fancy
takes you. And you wonder why the world sneers.

d

Bill Graham

June 30th 11, 06:26 AM

Don Pearce wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 21:56:13 -0700, "Bill Graham" >
> wrote:
>
>> William Sommerwerck wrote:
>>>> No, it most certainly does not say that. The exact wording is:
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>>> So the right to bear arms exists solely in the context of
>>>> maintaining a well-regulated militia.
>>>
>>> No, it doesn't. People have a right to keep and bear arms, simply as
>>> one of hundreds of rights that people naturally have. The government
>>> also has the right to make reasonable restrictions on the ownership
>>> and use of firearms.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, neither side wants to understand these things.
>>
>> Yes. I have a problem with your, "reasonable restrictions" and how
>> they relate to, "not be infringed". It is perfectly reasonable to
>> argue over these two things and how they contradict with each other.
>> IMO, restrictions against my carrying concealed weapons is an
>> infringement of my 2nd amendment rights, so I have defied the local
>> laws and carried concealed all of my adult life. Not only do such
>> restrictions defy the 2nd amendment, but they are unenforceable to
>> boot, and I naturally break unenforceable laws. (Its the libertarian
>> in me)
>
> So now the second amendment - in your head - talks about carrying
> concealed weapons. Is that how you believe a militia works? You carry
> your pike and sword concealed so the invading forces think you are
> unarmed, then whip them out at the last moment.
>
> As opposed, of course, to forming a defensive line with weapons ready
> and aimed.
>
> d

And where, exactly, did I say the 2nd amendment talks about concealed
weapons? It is in your own mind that there is a problem. I interpret "keep
and bear" to mean that I can carry my gun any way I want, and since the
stupid liberal laws against concealed carry are unenforceable, I do. the 2nd
amendment doesn't have to specify exactly how one carries. The guns they
have today are much smaller and more easily concealable than the ones they
had when the Constitution was written. I am accustomed to carring anything
in my pockets that fits and that aI want to carry,k even though the dumb
liberals are working to develop x-ray machines that will stop that.
Fortunately, I will be long gone before they perfect them.

Don Pearce[_3_]

June 30th 11, 06:28 AM

On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 22:11:24 -0700, "Bill Graham" >
wrote:

>Frank wrote:
>> I'm certainly not going to pick on older people, but I have
>> encountered a few recently who refer to almost any form of recorded
>> media (aside from a phonograph record), such as a CD or DVD, as a
>> "tape". Drives me nuts, especially when they send me an e-mail message
>> asking if I've received the tape that they sent to me.
>
>If you understood what they meant, and they understand what you mean, then
>there is no poroblem as far as I am concerned. After all, that is the
>purpose of language. But you are certainly encouraged to be as correct as
>possible, especially when you write something for general consumption......

Exactly the view of the founding Fathers when they penned the second
amendment. Of course they thought they were dealing with an
intelligent, enlightened population rather than dingbats who thought
they could pick and choose among the words, ignoring the vital
qualification.

d

Bill Graham

June 30th 11, 06:31 AM

Don Pearce wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 22:19:03 -0700, "Bill Graham" >
> wrote:
>
>> Don Pearce wrote:
>>> On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 21:45:44 -0700, "Bill Graham" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> So that first part was really put in just for fun, was it? Are you
>>>>> aware that they deliberated at length over every dot and comma in
>>>>> that document?
>>>>>
>>>>> d
>>>>
>>>> No. In my opinion it was placed there to promote the keeping of
>>>> firearms as a deterrent against foreign invasion, so the liberals
>>>> banned assault weapons, in keeping with their usual lack of common
>>>> sense. The founding fathers were talking about assault weapons when
>>>> they wrote the amendment. Also, if they agonized over every word,
>>>> then you must know when they said "The people" they weren't talking
>>>> about the army. 'They knew full well what is meant by, "the
>>>> people". The people is you and me, buddy.
>>>
>>> So now the constitution says "firearms", does it? Strange that I
>>> can't seem to find that in the original text. As for assault
>>> weapons, your imagination is growing ever more crazed. Stop trying
>>> to twist your constitution to fit your personal prejudice; it
>>> doesn't work.
>>>
>>> d
>> Oh, give me a break! It works fine for me. You are the one who
>> attached so much significance to the first half of the 2nd amendment
>> sentence. So what do you think it means? I think they were worried
>> about foreign invaders. That isn't, "twisting the meaning to suit my
>> own ends". If I were to do that, I would say the founding fathers
>> were talking about personal protection, and they wanted every
>> individual to carry a concealed handgun, because that's what I use
>> the amendment for, and have for my entire life. I carry concealed
>> because I think I have that right, and because there is no way to
>> stop me. IOW, the laws against concealed carry are unenforceable,
>> and I live to break unenforceable laws.......
>
> So in the absence of any foreign invaders against whom you might have
> to bear arms as part of a militia, you have decided to carry a
> concealed gun to be used against your fellow citizens when the fancy
> takes you. And you wonder why the world sneers.
>
> d

Yes. "the fancy takes me" when I need to stay alive, and that is my own
personal choice. If you want to place your life in the hands of the police
who are five to twenty five minutes away, that is your choice. Had I done
that, I wouldn't be here having this discussion with you right now.

Don Pearce[_3_]

June 30th 11, 06:36 AM

On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 22:31:41 -0700, "Bill Graham" >
wrote:

>Don Pearce wrote:
>> On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 22:19:03 -0700, "Bill Graham" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Don Pearce wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 21:45:44 -0700, "Bill Graham" >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> So that first part was really put in just for fun, was it? Are you
>>>>>> aware that they deliberated at length over every dot and comma in
>>>>>> that document?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> d
>>>>>
>>>>> No. In my opinion it was placed there to promote the keeping of
>>>>> firearms as a deterrent against foreign invasion, so the liberals
>>>>> banned assault weapons, in keeping with their usual lack of common
>>>>> sense. The founding fathers were talking about assault weapons when
>>>>> they wrote the amendment. Also, if they agonized over every word,
>>>>> then you must know when they said "The people" they weren't talking
>>>>> about the army. 'They knew full well what is meant by, "the
>>>>> people". The people is you and me, buddy.
>>>>
>>>> So now the constitution says "firearms", does it? Strange that I
>>>> can't seem to find that in the original text. As for assault
>>>> weapons, your imagination is growing ever more crazed. Stop trying
>>>> to twist your constitution to fit your personal prejudice; it
>>>> doesn't work.
>>>>
>>>> d
>>> Oh, give me a break! It works fine for me. You are the one who
>>> attached so much significance to the first half of the 2nd amendment
>>> sentence. So what do you think it means? I think they were worried
>>> about foreign invaders. That isn't, "twisting the meaning to suit my
>>> own ends". If I were to do that, I would say the founding fathers
>>> were talking about personal protection, and they wanted every
>>> individual to carry a concealed handgun, because that's what I use
>>> the amendment for, and have for my entire life. I carry concealed
>>> because I think I have that right, and because there is no way to
>>> stop me. IOW, the laws against concealed carry are unenforceable,
>>> and I live to break unenforceable laws.......
>>
>> So in the absence of any foreign invaders against whom you might have
>> to bear arms as part of a militia, you have decided to carry a
>> concealed gun to be used against your fellow citizens when the fancy
>> takes you. And you wonder why the world sneers.
>>
>> d
>
>Yes. "the fancy takes me" when I need to stay alive, and that is my own
>personal choice. If you want to place your life in the hands of the police
>who are five to twenty five minutes away, that is your choice. Had I done
>that, I wouldn't be here having this discussion with you right now.

That's because you live in a country where people think it is ok to
carry guns.

d

Bill Graham

June 30th 11, 06:39 AM

Don Pearce wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 22:11:24 -0700, "Bill Graham" >
> wrote:
>
>> Frank wrote:
>>> I'm certainly not going to pick on older people, but I have
>>> encountered a few recently who refer to almost any form of recorded
>>> media (aside from a phonograph record), such as a CD or DVD, as a
>>> "tape". Drives me nuts, especially when they send me an e-mail
>>> message asking if I've received the tape that they sent to me.
>>
>> If you understood what they meant, and they understand what you
>> mean, then there is no poroblem as far as I am concerned. After all,
>> that is the purpose of language. But you are certainly encouraged to
>> be as correct as possible, especially when you write something for
>> general consumption......
>
> Exactly the view of the founding Fathers when they penned the second
> amendment. Of course they thought they were dealing with an
> intelligent, enlightened population rather than dingbats who thought
> they could pick and choose among the words, ignoring the vital
> qualification.
>
> d

"dingbats who pick and choose" are in the eyes of the beholder. There is no
way to go back and interrogate the founding fathers. However, we can inspect
and read their personal letters and writings, and when one does that, one
finds that they agree with the dingbats I know rather than the ones you seem
to know.

Don Pearce[_3_]

June 30th 11, 06:46 AM

On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 22:39:50 -0700, "Bill Graham" >
wrote:

>Don Pearce wrote:
>> On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 22:11:24 -0700, "Bill Graham" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Frank wrote:
>>>> I'm certainly not going to pick on older people, but I have
>>>> encountered a few recently who refer to almost any form of recorded
>>>> media (aside from a phonograph record), such as a CD or DVD, as a
>>>> "tape". Drives me nuts, especially when they send me an e-mail
>>>> message asking if I've received the tape that they sent to me.
>>>
>>> If you understood what they meant, and they understand what you
>>> mean, then there is no poroblem as far as I am concerned. After all,
>>> that is the purpose of language. But you are certainly encouraged to
>>> be as correct as possible, especially when you write something for
>>> general consumption......
>>
>> Exactly the view of the founding Fathers when they penned the second
>> amendment. Of course they thought they were dealing with an
>> intelligent, enlightened population rather than dingbats who thought
>> they could pick and choose among the words, ignoring the vital
>> qualification.
>>
>> d
>
>"dingbats who pick and choose" are in the eyes of the beholder. There is no
>way to go back and interrogate the founding fathers. However, we can inspect
>and read their personal letters and writings, and when one does that, one
>finds that they agree with the dingbats I know rather than the ones you seem
>to know.

This beholder is one who can read the entire text of the second
amendment and see that the right to bear arms is granted in the
context of membership of a militia of local defence volunteers. It
could be argued that your arms should be stored at the local militia
headquarters, to be issued for practice and in case of invasion.

d

Bill Graham

June 30th 11, 06:47 AM

Don Pearce wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 22:31:41 -0700, "Bill Graham" >
> wrote:
>
>> Don Pearce wrote:
>>> On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 22:19:03 -0700, "Bill Graham" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Don Pearce wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 21:45:44 -0700, "Bill Graham"
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> So that first part was really put in just for fun, was it? Are
>>>>>>> you aware that they deliberated at length over every dot and
>>>>>>> comma in that document?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> d
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No. In my opinion it was placed there to promote the keeping of
>>>>>> firearms as a deterrent against foreign invasion, so the liberals
>>>>>> banned assault weapons, in keeping with their usual lack of
>>>>>> common sense. The founding fathers were talking about assault
>>>>>> weapons when they wrote the amendment. Also, if they agonized
>>>>>> over every word, then you must know when they said "The people"
>>>>>> they weren't talking about the army. 'They knew full well what
>>>>>> is meant by, "the people". The people is you and me, buddy.
>>>>>
>>>>> So now the constitution says "firearms", does it? Strange that I
>>>>> can't seem to find that in the original text. As for assault
>>>>> weapons, your imagination is growing ever more crazed. Stop trying
>>>>> to twist your constitution to fit your personal prejudice; it
>>>>> doesn't work.
>>>>>
>>>>> d
>>>> Oh, give me a break! It works fine for me. You are the one who
>>>> attached so much significance to the first half of the 2nd
>>>> amendment sentence. So what do you think it means? I think they
>>>> were worried about foreign invaders. That isn't, "twisting the
>>>> meaning to suit my own ends". If I were to do that, I would say
>>>> the founding fathers were talking about personal protection, and
>>>> they wanted every individual to carry a concealed handgun, because
>>>> that's what I use the amendment for, and have for my entire life.
>>>> I carry concealed because I think I have that right, and because
>>>> there is no way to stop me. IOW, the laws against concealed carry
>>>> are unenforceable, and I live to break unenforceable laws.......
>>>
>>> So in the absence of any foreign invaders against whom you might
>>> have to bear arms as part of a militia, you have decided to carry a
>>> concealed gun to be used against your fellow citizens when the fancy
>>> takes you. And you wonder why the world sneers.
>>>
>>> d
>>
>> Yes. "the fancy takes me" when I need to stay alive, and that is my
>> own personal choice. If you want to place your life in the hands of
>> the police who are five to twenty five minutes away, that is your
>> choice. Had I done that, I wouldn't be here having this discussion
>> with you right now.
>
> That's because you live in a country where people think it is ok to
> carry guns.
>
> d

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)

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.

Don Pearce[_3_]

June 30th 11, 06:51 AM

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

Bill Graham

June 30th 11, 06:55 AM

Don Pearce wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 22:39:50 -0700, "Bill Graham" >
> wrote:
>
>> Don Pearce wrote:
>>> On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 22:11:24 -0700, "Bill Graham" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Frank wrote:
>>>>> I'm certainly not going to pick on older people, but I have
>>>>> encountered a few recently who refer to almost any form of
>>>>> recorded media (aside from a phonograph record), such as a CD or
>>>>> DVD, as a "tape". Drives me nuts, especially when they send me an
>>>>> e-mail message asking if I've received the tape that they sent to
>>>>> me.
>>>>
>>>> If you understood what they meant, and they understand what you
>>>> mean, then there is no poroblem as far as I am concerned. After
>>>> all, that is the purpose of language. But you are certainly
>>>> encouraged to be as correct as possible, especially when you write
>>>> something for general consumption......
>>>
>>> Exactly the view of the founding Fathers when they penned the second
>>> amendment. Of course they thought they were dealing with an
>>> intelligent, enlightened population rather than dingbats who thought
>>> they could pick and choose among the words, ignoring the vital
>>> qualification.
>>>
>>> d
>>
>> "dingbats who pick and choose" are in the eyes of the beholder.
>> There is no way to go back and interrogate the founding fathers.
>> However, we can inspect and read their personal letters and
>> writings, and when one does that, one finds that they agree with the
>> dingbats I know rather than the ones you seem to know.
>
> This beholder is one who can read the entire text of the second
> amendment and see that the right to bear arms is granted in the
> context of membership of a militia of local defence volunteers. It
> could be argued that your arms should be stored at the local militia
> headquarters, to be issued for practice and in case of invasion.
>
> d

It could be so argued. but I wouldn't comply, because I don't carry a
concealed handgun to ward off foreign invaders. I carry it to ward off
criminals who would kill me for my pocket change. The police can't protect
me (or anyone else) from these. There aren't nearly enough of them. They can
only hunt down and prosecute the offenders after the fact. (with some
limited success). Knowing this, I had to choose to either carry in defiance
of the law, or remain huddled in my house and fear to tread to a whole
variety of interesting places and at interesting hours of the day and night.
I chose to carry, and I'm glad I did. But you can do as you like. I wouldn't
presume to tell you how to live your life, because I am not a liberal.

Steve King

June 30th 11, 06:58 AM

"Ed Anson" > wrote in message
...
> On 6/29/11 2:53 PM, Frank wrote:
>> P.S. Another one that bothers me is people with camcorders who say
>> that they're "filming".
>>
>> If they were using a film-based motion picture camera, then the term
>> "filming" would be appropriate, but when using a camcorder, they're
>> "shooting video", not "filming", at least as far as I'm concerned.
>
> 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?

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.

Steve King

Bill Graham

June 30th 11, 07:00 AM

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.

geoff

June 30th 11, 07:16 AM

"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".

geoff

John Williamson

June 30th 11, 10:12 AM

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.....

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.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

John Williamson

June 30th 11, 10:18 AM

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.....

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

Don Pearce[_3_]

June 30th 11, 04:53 PM

On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 00:58:06 -0500, "Steve King"
> wrote:

>"Ed Anson" > wrote in message
...
>> On 6/29/11 2:53 PM, Frank wrote:
>>> P.S. Another one that bothers me is people with camcorders who say
>>> that they're "filming".
>>>
>>> If they were using a film-based motion picture camera, then the term
>>> "filming" would be appropriate, but when using a camcorder, they're
>>> "shooting video", not "filming", at least as far as I'm concerned.
>>
>> 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?
>
>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.
>
>Steve King
>

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

d

William Sommerwerck

June 30th 11, 05:19 PM

> 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?

> as "keying". Supposedly it came from really young
> kids who have grown up with computers.

"Keying" might just as well have come from typists.

Don Pearce[_3_]

June 30th 11, 05:27 PM

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

William Sommerwerck

June 30th 11, 05:30 PM

"Don Pearce" > wrote in message
...
> 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.

I don't know. If you were asked in 1955 to enter your name and address on a
form, you wouldn't have thought it odd usage.

Insert implies a slot or container.

Don Pearce[_3_]

June 30th 11, 05:35 PM

On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 09:30:22 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
> wrote:

>"Don Pearce" > wrote in message
...
>> 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.
>
>I don't know. If you were asked in 1955 to enter your name and address on a
>form, you wouldn't have thought it odd usage.
>
>Insert implies a slot or container.
>

Forms - don't get me started. There was a time when we used to fill
forms in. Now we are required to fill them out. What on earth is all
that about.

d

Bill Graham

June 30th 11, 07:52 PM

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.....
>
> 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.

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.

Bill Graham

June 30th 11, 07:54 PM

Don Pearce wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 00:58:06 -0500, "Steve King"
> > wrote:
>
>> "Ed Anson" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On 6/29/11 2:53 PM, Frank wrote:
>>>> P.S. Another one that bothers me is people with camcorders who say
>>>> that they're "filming".
>>>>
>>>> If they were using a film-based motion picture camera, then the
>>>> term "filming" would be appropriate, but when using a camcorder,
>>>> they're "shooting video", not "filming", at least as far as I'm
>>>> concerned.
>>>
>>> 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?
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Steve King
>>
>
> And here you use "input" as a verb. Surely it would be better to say
> "the way they put data into computers".
>
> d

Isn't "keying" what locksmiths do?

Bill Graham

June 30th 11, 08:02 PM

Bill Graham wrote:
> 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.....
>>
>> 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.
>
> 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.

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.
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."

Ron Capik[_3_]

June 30th 11, 08:19 PM

On 6/30/2011 2:54 PM, Bill Graham wrote:
> Don Pearce wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 00:58:06 -0500, "Steve King"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> "Ed Anson" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On 6/29/11 2:53 PM, Frank wrote:
>>>>> P.S. Another one that bothers me is people with camcorders who say
>>>>> that they're "filming".
>>>>>
>>>>> If they were using a film-based motion picture camera, then the
>>>>> term "filming" would be appropriate, but when using a camcorder,
>>>>> they're "shooting video", not "filming", at least as far as I'm
>>>>> concerned.
>>>>
>>>> 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?
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Steve King
>>>
>>
>> And here you use "input" as a verb. Surely it would be better to say
>> "the way they put data into computers".
>>
>> d
>
> Isn't "keying" what locksmiths do?

I thought it had something to do with
vandalism, or Morse code, or green screens,
or...

Later...
Ron Capik
--

Don Pearce[_3_]

June 30th 11, 08:22 PM

On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 11:54:36 -0700, "Bill Graham" >
wrote:

>Don Pearce wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 00:58:06 -0500, "Steve King"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> "Ed Anson" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On 6/29/11 2:53 PM, Frank wrote:
>>>>> P.S. Another one that bothers me is people with camcorders who say
>>>>> that they're "filming".
>>>>>
>>>>> If they were using a film-based motion picture camera, then the
>>>>> term "filming" would be appropriate, but when using a camcorder,
>>>>> they're "shooting video", not "filming", at least as far as I'm
>>>>> concerned.
>>>>
>>>> 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?
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Steve King
>>>
>>
>> And here you use "input" as a verb. Surely it would be better to say
>> "the way they put data into computers".
>>
>> d
>
>Isn't "keying" what locksmiths do?

No it is what yobbos do to car paintwork.

d

Scott Dorsey

June 30th 11, 08:55 PM

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

June 30th 11, 09:06 PM

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

June 30th 11, 10:11 PM

On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 16:27:04 GMT, in 'rec.audio.pro',
in article <Re: 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_]

June 30th 11, 11:02 PM

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_]

July 1st 11, 12:56 AM

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/demotivational-poster/1011/the-right-to-bear-arms-demotivational-poster-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

July 1st 11, 05:40 AM

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

July 1st 11, 05:45 AM

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

July 1st 11, 05:53 AM

geoff

July 1st 11, 08:34 AM

"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

July 1st 11, 08:38 AM

"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

July 1st 11, 08:44 AM

"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

July 1st 11, 03:51 PM

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

July 1st 11, 09:14 PM

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

July 1st 11, 09:19 PM

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

July 2nd 11, 01:08 AM

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_]

July 2nd 11, 07:10 AM

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_]

July 2nd 11, 07:13 AM

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_]

July 2nd 11, 07:29 AM

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

July 2nd 11, 12:17 PM

"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_]

July 2nd 11, 12:54 PM

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

July 3rd 11, 12:45 AM

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_]

July 3rd 11, 01:01 AM

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

July 3rd 11, 01:19 AM

"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

July 3rd 11, 01:33 AM

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

July 3rd 11, 02:22 AM

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

July 3rd 11, 02:27 AM

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

July 3rd 11, 03:09 AM

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]

July 3rd 11, 03:40 AM

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

July 3rd 11, 01:09 PM

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

July 3rd 11, 01:34 PM

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_]

July 3rd 11, 01:42 PM

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

July 3rd 11, 01:51 PM

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

July 3rd 11, 02:11 PM

"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

July 3rd 11, 02:15 PM

"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]

July 3rd 11, 02:41 PM

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

July 3rd 11, 03:44 PM

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_]

July 3rd 11, 04:11 PM

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

July 3rd 11, 05:49 PM

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

July 3rd 11, 08:07 PM

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

July 3rd 11, 08:13 PM

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.

Bill Graham

July 3rd 11, 08:18 PM

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> 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.

No. Just a different world than YOU live in. Please don';t transfer your
opinions to "everybody". You are welcome to your opinions, and the rest of
us are welcome to ours. but you only get ONE vote, just like the rest of us.

Bill Graham

July 3rd 11, 08:23 PM

wrote:
> 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?

A gun in your checked luggage is as useless as a screwdriver in your garage
when you are stuck out on the highway somewhere. You don't have to be, "80"
to know that. (Besides, I am only 75....:^)

Peter Larsen[_3_]

July 3rd 11, 08:25 PM

Bill Graham wrote:

> "The fit" is your wording, and not mine. I speak of the criminals,
> and not the fit.

That's doublespeak.

> There is literally no other way to prevent crime.

> As I've said before, the police can't prevent crime.

Police does not and can not prevent crime nor does killing the criminals,
proper socializing does.

> 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.

Correct, but you mix the general scope and the individual case scope in your
line of reasoning.

> The police can only hunt
> down the perpetrators after the fact, but that doesn't help you any.

Exactly, to prevent crime you need to obtain that people understand that it
is to their own positive benefit not to be criminal. Quite possibly
something that needs to be acheived before the age of 7.

> 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.

Again, mixing up general scope and individual case. Waving a gun may be good
if someone else waves one at you, but it is better to obtain that the
"someone else" has no wish to transfer your right to your property to
himself and thus didn't "do it" in the first place.

Crime is immensely costly to society, so throwing more money and resources
at preventing it is worthwhile. Considering "the other" less worthy, not
even a human, someone that doesn't count, is the root cause of a lot of the
street crime in a city, it can even be rooted in an ideology, in which case
is an ideology problem, going after the perpetrators will give you revenge,
but it will not give you prevention.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

Bill Graham

July 3rd 11, 08:32 PM

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.

The second amendment says nothing about, "reasonable regulation". It says,
"....shall not be infringed." I interpret not allowing me to carry my pistol
concealed in my pocket, an infringement. Of course, SCOTUS can interpret
anything written in any law any way they please. But I have done a hell of a
lot of reading and writing in my 75 years, and I interpret it as an
infringement....Big time. Sorry about that.

Bill Graham

July 3rd 11, 08:39 PM

Don Pearce wrote:
> 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

In that case, the same document outlines a method of changing itself, so you
should avail yourselves of that method, and CHANGE IT! Wouldn't this be far
preferable to intentionally distorting the meaning to suit your own
purposes? After all, sometime in the future, someone else will intentionally
distort the document to suit their own purposes, and take away some freedom
that you personally value very highly. And, when that happens, you will have
no one to blame but yourself. After all, you helped establish the precedent.

Bill Graham

July 3rd 11, 08:43 PM

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.
>
>
>> 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.

Yes. And, at the time the constitution was written, they were the chief
tools used in war. Especially when you read the words, "keep and bear". It
is hard to bear a tank.

Bill Graham

July 3rd 11, 08:50 PM

wrote:
> 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.
>
But the TSA thinks of you, and treats you as if, you are a criminal, without
any justification whatsoever. They also, (like most liberals) think that you
should be disarmed, so you can't carry out your criminal activities on their
flights. The idea that you might stop others from carrying out criminal
activities is alien to their whole little, small minded, liberal, way of
thinking. If it isn't bad enough that these people think the police, who are
usually many blocks away, can prevent a crime from happening, now they think
the police can prevent it when they are 30,000 feet below you on the ground!
There is literally no end to their stupidity!

Bill Graham

July 3rd 11, 08:52 PM

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.

The thing about guns is, you can fire them in any direction......

Les Cargill[_4_]

July 3rd 11, 08:57 PM

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> William > wrote:
<snip>
>>
>> Ever seen the James Garner film "Tank"?
>
> I have not, but anything with James Garner is probably worth watching.
> --scott
>

It is.

--
Les Cargill

Les Cargill[_4_]

July 3rd 11, 09:05 PM

John Williamson wrote:
> 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.
>
>

No, that's what Sergeants are for.

--
Les Cargill

Ben Bradley[_2_]

July 3rd 11, 09:12 PM

On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 19:42:46 GMT, (Don Pearce) wrote:

>On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 12:38:54 -0700, "Bill Graham" >
>wrote:
>
>>> If they were using a film-based motion picture camera, then the term
>>> "filming" would be appropriate, but when using a camcorder, they're
>>> "shooting video", not "filming", at least as far as I'm concerned.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>
>>I guess you don't accept the word, "tape" as a euphamism for "record"
>>either. It is hard for me to change my language in some cases, because at
>>75, I have been hearing and using some of these terms for many years.
>
>You say euphemism, but I presume you mean synonym.

Recording can be dirty work. Keep your tape path clean.

>A CD is also a
>record, but we only really use the word for a vinyl disc.
>
>d

Bill Graham

July 3rd 11, 09:14 PM

Peter Larsen wrote:
> Bill Graham wrote:
>
>> "The fit" is your wording, and not mine. I speak of the criminals,
>> and not the fit.
>
> That's doublespeak.
>
>> There is literally no other way to prevent crime.
>
>> As I've said before, the police can't prevent crime.
>
> Police does not and can not prevent crime nor does killing the
> criminals, proper socializing does.
>
>> 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.
>
> Correct, but you mix the general scope and the individual case scope
> in your line of reasoning.
>
>> The police can only hunt
>> down the perpetrators after the fact, but that doesn't help you any.
>
> Exactly, to prevent crime you need to obtain that people understand
> that it is to their own positive benefit not to be criminal. Quite
> possibly something that needs to be acheived before the age of 7.
>
>> 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.
>
> Again, mixing up general scope and individual case. Waving a gun may
> be good if someone else waves one at you, but it is better to obtain
> that the "someone else" has no wish to transfer your right to your
> property to himself and thus didn't "do it" in the first place.
>
> Crime is immensely costly to society, so throwing more money and
> resources at preventing it is worthwhile. Considering "the other"
> less worthy, not even a human, someone that doesn't count, is the
> root cause of a lot of the street crime in a city, it can even be
> rooted in an ideology, in which case is an ideology problem, going
> after the perpetrators will give you revenge, but it will not give
> you prevention.
> Kind regards
>
> Peter Larsen

No. You are wrong on this. I don't carry a gun for the good of society. I
carry it for me, and the few people with me at the time. Fixing the problems
of society is not my busine3ss. You are free to do so yourself, and I'm
really glad that there are other people who are willing and able to do this.
but it is not my concern. I carry a gun for myself, and not for the rest of
society. And, I have to say, that the people who are attempting to fix the
whole of society are losing the battle. Because the need for me to carry has
increased over the years to the point that now, today, there has never been
as pressing a need for gun carriers than there is at this late date. The
world, or at least my world, has become a much more dangerous place than it
was when I was younger. The percentage of criminals who will kill you for
your pocket change has been going up here my whole life. And, I have also
noticed that the police take longer now to get here when there is a problem
than they have ever needed before. There was an incident several years ago
when one of my neighbors was threatened by a criminal, and it took the
police 15 hours to respond to his 911 call.

Bill Graham

July 3rd 11, 09:18 PM

Les Cargill wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>>
>
> No, that's what Sergeants are for.

They shoot sergents? (only kidding)

Ben Bradley[_2_]

July 3rd 11, 09:25 PM

On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 17:11:22 -0400, Frank
> wrote:

>On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 16:27:04 GMT, in 'rec.audio.pro',
>in article <Re: 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.

Real Men use calculators with an Enter key.

Peter Larsen[_3_]

July 3rd 11, 09:41 PM

Bill Graham wrote:

> No. You are wrong on this. I don't carry a gun for the good of
> society.

You carry a gun because you feel that society has failed, understood.

Peter Larsen

geoff

July 3rd 11, 09:54 PM

"Ben Bradley" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 17:11:22 -0400, Frank
> Real Men use calculators with an Enter key.

My calculator has no "=" key ...

So beat that !

geoff

Bill Graham

July 3rd 11, 10:00 PM

Peter Larsen wrote:
> Bill Graham wrote:
>
>> No. You are wrong on this. I don't carry a gun for the good of
>> society.
>
> You carry a gun because you feel that society has failed, understood.
>
> Peter Larsen

When it comes to preventing crime, I know that it has failed. Only the
stupid liberals can't understand that.

Arny Krueger

July 3rd 11, 10:27 PM

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...

> 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?

The first fallacy here is that guns are the only effective means of
self-defense.

The second fallacy is that there are enough people who feel that you should
no longer live exist and are likely to act on that belief to create a real
and present danger.

hank alrich

July 3rd 11, 10:51 PM

Peter Larsen > wrote:

> Bill Graham wrote:
>
> > No. You are wrong on this. I don't carry a gun for the good of
> > society.
>
> You carry a gun because you feel that society has failed, understood.
>
> Peter Larsen

Isn't exciting to think that a man with Bill's mentality is walking
around with a handgun? Guy can't think his way into a wet paper shopping
bag, but he's gonna get the drop on the bad guys.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpqXcV9DYAc
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

hank alrich

July 3rd 11, 10:51 PM

geoff > wrote:

> "Ben Bradley" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 17:11:22 -0400, Frank
> > Real Men use calculators with an Enter key.
>
> My calculator has no "=" key ...
>
> So beat that !
>
> geoff

Sir, yo' calculator has no equal!!

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpqXcV9DYAc
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

Don Pearce[_3_]

July 3rd 11, 10:56 PM

On Sun, 3 Jul 2011 12:39:13 -0700, "Bill Graham" >
wrote:

>Don Pearce wrote:
>> 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
>
>In that case, the same document outlines a method of changing itself, so you
>should avail yourselves of that method, and CHANGE IT! Wouldn't this be far
>preferable to intentionally distorting the meaning to suit your own
>purposes? After all, sometime in the future, someone else will intentionally
>distort the document to suit their own purposes, and take away some freedom
>that you personally value very highly. And, when that happens, you will have
>no one to blame but yourself. After all, you helped establish the precedent.

You accuse me of distorting meaning? You, who at the start of this
conversation wouldn't even acknowledge the existence of the first
part.

And no, that won't happen to me. You see I don't live in a country
where people like you think that they can take what they want by
pointing a gun at someone.

d

Don Pearce[_3_]

July 3rd 11, 10:58 PM

On Sun, 3 Jul 2011 06:15:30 -0700, "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.
>
Nowhere is that implied. What you choose to infer is of course another
matter. But it would be a more than gross distortion of the second
amendment.

d

Peter Larsen[_3_]

July 3rd 11, 11:52 PM

hank alrich wrote:

> Isn't exciting to think that a man with Bill's mentality is walking
> around with a handgun? Guy can't think his way into a wet paper
> shopping bag, but he's gonna get the drop on the bad guys.

I find it productive and prudent in this newsgroup to refrain from
commenting on the mentality of other participants. What can be said
factualle is however that Bill does have a very poor on topic content to off
topic noise ratio, not that we can all be on topic all of the time, but
there has to be some reason to it all.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

Bill Graham

July 3rd 11, 11:58 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> 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?
>
>
> The first fallacy here is that guns are the only effective means of
> self-defense.
>
> The second fallacy is that there are enough people who feel that you
> should no longer live exist and are likely to act on that belief to
> create a real and present danger.

Enough? - It only takes one.

Bill Graham

July 4th 11, 12:06 AM

Don Pearce wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Jul 2011 12:39:13 -0700, "Bill Graham" >
> wrote:
>
>> Don Pearce wrote:
>>> 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
>>
>> In that case, the same document outlines a method of changing
>> itself, so you should avail yourselves of that method, and CHANGE
>> IT! Wouldn't this be far preferable to intentionally distorting the
>> meaning to suit your own purposes? After all, sometime in the
>> future, someone else will intentionally distort the document to suit
>> their own purposes, and take away some freedom that you personally
>> value very highly. And, when that happens, you will have no one to
>> blame but yourself. After all, you helped establish the precedent.
>
> You accuse me of distorting meaning? You, who at the start of this
> conversation wouldn't even acknowledge the existence of the first
> part.

Of course I axknowledge the existence of the first part. I just know that it
isn't5 part of the law. The first part of a compound sentence doesn't have
to have anything to do with the second part. The law incorporated in the
second amendment consists of the second half of its compound sentence. In my
opinion the first part is a justification for the law, and helps us to know
what went through the minds of the writers of the amendment. They were
talking about assault weapons, and not hunting or target weapons.
>
> And no, that won't happen to me. You see I don't live in a country
> where people like you think that they can take what they want by
> pointing a gun at someone.
>
> d

Give me a break! Why would you say that? You know damn well that I don't
carry a gun for the purpose of robbing people. I carry it for my own
protection. I don't even think I would use it to protect my property with. I
would only use it to save my own life, or the lives of those who were with
me.

Bill Graham

July 4th 11, 12:10 AM

Don Pearce wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Jul 2011 06:15:30 -0700, "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.
>>
> Nowhere is that implied. What you choose to infer is of course another
> matter. But it would be a more than gross distortion of the second
> amendment.
>
> d

I had a political science instructor ask the class once what was the
prikmary law of the land. Someone in the class said, "The constitution and
the laws made under the constitution." He said, "Wrong! It is the right of
revolution. This supercedes any document, and every governments people have
that right, should they choose to avail themnselves of it."

Bill Graham

July 4th 11, 12:16 AM

Peter Larsen wrote:
> hank alrich wrote:
>
>> Isn't exciting to think that a man with Bill's mentality is walking
>> around with a handgun? Guy can't think his way into a wet paper
>> shopping bag, but he's gonna get the drop on the bad guys.
>
> I find it productive and prudent in this newsgroup to refrain from
> commenting on the mentality of other participants. What can be said
> factualle is however that Bill does have a very poor on topic content
> to off topic noise ratio, not that we can all be on topic all of the
> time, but there has to be some reason to it all.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Peter Larsen

I find it exiciting to realize that people like Hank can't debate me on the
issues, but find it productive to stand aside and throw mud on my character.
I have never shot anyone in my life, although he implies that I am running
around threatening other people's lives. This is a "guns kill people"
mentality and is totally uncalled for. If he had any intellectual integrity,
he would either formulate some constructive argument against my poosition,
or simply shut up.

[email protected]

July 4th 11, 01:02 AM

On 2011-07-03 (hankalrich) said:
>Isn't exciting to think that a man with Bill's mentality is walking
>around with a handgun? Guy can't think his way into a wet paper
>shopping bag, but he's gonna get the drop on the bad guys.

<rotflmao!!!> That's kinda what I thought.

Richard webb,

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

John Williamson

July 4th 11, 04:31 AM

Bill Graham wrote:
> Peter Larsen wrote:
>> hank alrich wrote:
>>
>>> Isn't exciting to think that a man with Bill's mentality is walking
>>> around with a handgun? Guy can't think his way into a wet paper
>>> shopping bag, but he's gonna get the drop on the bad guys.
>>
>> I find it productive and prudent in this newsgroup to refrain from
>> commenting on the mentality of other participants. What can be said
>> factualle is however that Bill does have a very poor on topic content
>> to off topic noise ratio, not that we can all be on topic all of the
>> time, but there has to be some reason to it all.
>>
>> Kind regards
>>
>> Peter Larsen
>
> I find it exiciting to realize that people like Hank can't debate me on
> the issues, but find it productive to stand aside and throw mud on my
> character. I have never shot anyone in my life, although he implies that
> I am running around threatening other people's lives. This is a "guns
> kill people" mentality and is totally uncalled for. If he had any
> intellectual integrity, he would either formulate some constructive
> argument against my poosition, or simply shut up.

Many constructive arguments against your position have been presented in
this and other threads. You choose to ignore them all in favour of your
fixed idea that it is essential for all people to carry a gun at all
times. You seem to find it impossible to believe that there are places
in the World where carrying a gun is neither necessary or desirable.

One result of your attitude, and others of your mind-bent, is that there
are many more more murders in the USA per 100,000 people than in the UK.
That's 5.0 in the US against 1.28 (Excluding attempted murders) in the
UK. We don't carry guns, Americans do. As they say on your side of the
Atlantic, go figure...

The figure for New York is between 10 and 20, according to which set of
figures you read and believe. That's about ten times the figure for
London. There *is* one estate in Manchester, England where the figures
approached that a couple of years ago, but the drug wars there fizzled
out when the police got interested after a dozen or so deaths and
started arresting people.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

John Williamson

July 4th 11, 04:39 AM

Bill Graham wrote:
> Don Pearce wrote:
>> On Sun, 3 Jul 2011 12:39:13 -0700, "Bill Graham" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Don Pearce wrote:
>>>> 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
>>>
>>> In that case, the same document outlines a method of changing
>>> itself, so you should avail yourselves of that method, and CHANGE
>>> IT! Wouldn't this be far preferable to intentionally distorting the
>>> meaning to suit your own purposes? After all, sometime in the
>>> future, someone else will intentionally distort the document to suit
>>> their own purposes, and take away some freedom that you personally
>>> value very highly. And, when that happens, you will have no one to
>>> blame but yourself. After all, you helped establish the precedent.
>>
>> You accuse me of distorting meaning? You, who at the start of this
>> conversation wouldn't even acknowledge the existence of the first
>> part.
>
> Of course I axknowledge the existence of the first part. I just know
> that it isn't5 part of the law. The first part of a compound sentence
> doesn't have to have anything to do with the second part. The law
> incorporated in the second amendment consists of the second half of its
> compound sentence. In my opinion the first part is a justification for
> the law, and helps us to know what went through the minds of the writers
> of the amendment. They were talking about assault weapons, and not
> hunting or target weapons.

So, you are saying that, in your opinion, the Founding Fathers approved
of citizens holding weapons (Guns are not mentioned at any point in the
second amendment) to be used in the defence of the State, but do not
approve of citizens holding them for other purposes?

You are, in effect, saying that it should be illegal for citizens to
carry weapons while going about their daily business.

If you think that's a bad law, there are democratic processes in place
to change it, which are provably more effective than individuals
deliberately breaking it, as you do.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

Bill Graham

July 4th 11, 06:29 AM

John Williamson wrote:
> Bill Graham wrote:
>> Peter Larsen wrote:
>>> hank alrich wrote:
>>>
>>>> Isn't exciting to think that a man with Bill's mentality is walking
>>>> around with a handgun? Guy can't think his way into a wet paper
>>>> shopping bag, but he's gonna get the drop on the bad guys.
>>>
>>> I find it productive and prudent in this newsgroup to refrain from
>>> commenting on the mentality of other participants. What can be said
>>> factualle is however that Bill does have a very poor on topic
>>> content to off topic noise ratio, not that we can all be on topic
>>> all of the time, but there has to be some reason to it all.
>>>
>>> Kind regards
>>>
>>> Peter Larsen
>>
>> I find it exiciting to realize that people like Hank can't debate me
>> on the issues, but find it productive to stand aside and throw mud
>> on my character. I have never shot anyone in my life, although he
>> implies that I am running around threatening other people's lives.
>> This is a "guns kill people" mentality and is totally uncalled for.
>> If he had any intellectual integrity, he would either formulate some
>> constructive argument against my poosition, or simply shut up.
>
> Many constructive arguments against your position have been presented
> in this and other threads. You choose to ignore them all in favour of
> your fixed idea that it is essential for all people to carry a gun at
> all times. You seem to find it impossible to believe that there are
> places in the World where carrying a gun is neither necessary or
> desirable.
> One result of your attitude, and others of your mind-bent, is that
> there are many more more murders in the USA per 100,000 people than
> in the UK. That's 5.0 in the US against 1.28 (Excluding attempted
> murders) in the UK. We don't carry guns, Americans do. As they say on
> your side of the Atlantic, go figure...
>
> The figure for New York is between 10 and 20, according to which set
> of figures you read and believe. That's about ten times the figure for
> London. There *is* one estate in Manchester, England where the figures
> approached that a couple of years ago, but the drug wars there fizzled
> out when the police got interested after a dozen or so deaths and
> started arresting people.

Yes. And New York (city) has the most restrictive anti-gun laws in the
country.... So, "go figure" that.

Bill Graham

July 4th 11, 06:35 AM

John Williamson wrote:
> Bill Graham wrote:
>> Don Pearce wrote:
>>> On Sun, 3 Jul 2011 12:39:13 -0700, "Bill Graham" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Don Pearce wrote:
>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>> In that case, the same document outlines a method of changing
>>>> itself, so you should avail yourselves of that method, and CHANGE
>>>> IT! Wouldn't this be far preferable to intentionally distorting the
>>>> meaning to suit your own purposes? After all, sometime in the
>>>> future, someone else will intentionally distort the document to
>>>> suit their own purposes, and take away some freedom that you
>>>> personally value very highly. And, when that happens, you will
>>>> have no one to blame but yourself. After all, you helped establish
>>>> the precedent.
>>>
>>> You accuse me of distorting meaning? You, who at the start of this
>>> conversation wouldn't even acknowledge the existence of the first
>>> part.
>>
>> Of course I axknowledge the existence of the first part. I just know
>> that it isn't5 part of the law. The first part of a compound sentence
>> doesn't have to have anything to do with the second part. The law
>> incorporated in the second amendment consists of the second half of
>> its compound sentence. In my opinion the first part is a
>> justification for the law, and helps us to know what went through
>> the minds of the writers of the amendment. They were talking about
>> assault weapons, and not hunting or target weapons.
>
> So, you are saying that, in your opinion, the Founding Fathers
> approved of citizens holding weapons (Guns are not mentioned at any
> point in the second amendment) to be used in the defence of the
> State, but do not approve of citizens holding them for other purposes?
>
> You are, in effect, saying that it should be illegal for citizens to
> carry weapons while going about their daily business.
>
> If you think that's a bad law, there are democratic processes in place
> to change it, which are provably more effective than individuals
> deliberately breaking it, as you do.

I am not deliberately breaking anything. The amendment reads, "....the right
of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged." What does that
mean to you? Also, SCOTUS has said on several occasions that laws made that
are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void. I am, in fact the only
one who is obeying the law. Exactly how do you justify saying that I am
breaking it?

Trevor

July 4th 11, 07:23 AM

"Bill Graham" > wrote in message
...
> Yes. And New York (city) has the most restrictive anti-gun laws in the
> country.... So, "go figure" that.

Simple, criminals have easy access to guns there, and don't obey the laws
anyway!
In many other countries access to guns is very difficult, so only the really
determined ones have guns.

Trevor.

geoff

July 4th 11, 07:51 AM

"hank alrich" > wrote in message
...
> geoff > wrote:
>
>> "Ben Bradley" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 17:11:22 -0400, Frank
>> > Real Men use calculators with an Enter key.
>>
>> My calculator has no "=" key ...
>>
>> So beat that !
>>
>> geoff
>
> Sir, yo' calculator has no equal!!

Only lysdexic lopes can understand it.

geoff

geoff

July 4th 11, 07:56 AM

"Bill Graham" > wrote in message
...
>
> When it comes to preventing crime, I know that it has failed. Only the
> stupid liberals can't understand that.

Well the country I live in would probably be (even the wildy conservative
fringe) considered 'liberal'. We have no legally carried handguns
(registered collectors in gun-safes only), and very strict controls on
rifles and shotguns. And very few crimes committed with handguns (or guns
in general).

By your reckoning, the should be heaps of crimes committed with illegal
instances of these weapons (they are around, apparently), because nobody
has one for defence !

geoff

John Williamson

July 4th 11, 09:00 AM

Trevor wrote:
> "Bill Graham" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Yes. And New York (city) has the most restrictive anti-gun laws in the
>> country.... So, "go figure" that.
>
> Simple, criminals have easy access to guns there, and don't obey the laws
> anyway!
> In many other countries access to guns is very difficult, so only the really
> determined ones have guns.
>
How many of those criminals are from out of town, and how many *know*
someone from out of town? I'd guess a sizeable majority just go out of
state and buy stuff.

I'm afraid that Mr. Graham is so far embedded in his fantasy that he
can't get back to reality.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

John Williamson

July 4th 11, 09:02 AM

geoff wrote:
> "hank alrich" > wrote in message
> ...
>> geoff > wrote:
>>
>>> "Ben Bradley" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 17:11:22 -0400, Frank
>>>> Real Men use calculators with an Enter key.
>>> My calculator has no "=" key ...
>>>
>>> So beat that !
>>>
>>> geoff
>> Sir, yo' calculator has no equal!!
>
> Only lysdexic lopes can understand it.
>
I used to have a Sinclair Scientific calculator with no = key. Once I
got used to the Reverse Polish system (AKA Post fixed operator) it used,
it was at least as easy to use as a normal one, and for some purposes,
even easier.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

John Williamson

July 4th 11, 09:05 AM

Bill Graham wrote:
> John Williamson wrote:
>> Bill Graham wrote:
>>> Don Pearce wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 3 Jul 2011 12:39:13 -0700, "Bill Graham" >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Don Pearce wrote:
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>> In that case, the same document outlines a method of changing
>>>>> itself, so you should avail yourselves of that method, and CHANGE
>>>>> IT! Wouldn't this be far preferable to intentionally distorting the
>>>>> meaning to suit your own purposes? After all, sometime in the
>>>>> future, someone else will intentionally distort the document to
>>>>> suit their own purposes, and take away some freedom that you
>>>>> personally value very highly. And, when that happens, you will
>>>>> have no one to blame but yourself. After all, you helped establish
>>>>> the precedent.
>>>>
>>>> You accuse me of distorting meaning? You, who at the start of this
>>>> conversation wouldn't even acknowledge the existence of the first
>>>> part.
>>>
>>> Of course I axknowledge the existence of the first part. I just know
>>> that it isn't5 part of the law. The first part of a compound sentence
>>> doesn't have to have anything to do with the second part. The law
>>> incorporated in the second amendment consists of the second half of
>>> its compound sentence. In my opinion the first part is a
>>> justification for the law, and helps us to know what went through
>>> the minds of the writers of the amendment. They were talking about
>>> assault weapons, and not hunting or target weapons.
>>
>> So, you are saying that, in your opinion, the Founding Fathers
>> approved of citizens holding weapons (Guns are not mentioned at any
>> point in the second amendment) to be used in the defence of the
>> State, but do not approve of citizens holding them for other purposes?
>>
>> You are, in effect, saying that it should be illegal for citizens to
>> carry weapons while going about their daily business.
>>
>> If you think that's a bad law, there are democratic processes in place
>> to change it, which are provably more effective than individuals
>> deliberately breaking it, as you do.
>
> I am not deliberately breaking anything. The amendment reads, "....the
> right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged." What
> does that mean to you? Also, SCOTUS has said on several occasions that
> laws made that are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void. I
> am, in fact the only one who is obeying the law. Exactly how do you
> justify saying that I am breaking it?

By your own admission earlier in the thread that you deliberately break
the law on carrying concealed weapons, as *you* consider it
unenforceable and hence a "bad law", and that you have a duty to break
bad laws.

ICBA cutting and pasting a quote, but it's there.....

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

Trevor

July 4th 11, 10:16 AM

"John Williamson" > wrote in message
...
>>>>> Real Men use calculators with an Enter key.
>>>> My calculator has no "=" key ...
>>>>
>>>> So beat that !
>>>>
>>>> geoff
>>> Sir, yo' calculator has no equal!!
>>
>> Only lysdexic lopes can understand it.
>>
> I used to have a Sinclair Scientific calculator with no = key. Once I got
> used to the Reverse Polish system (AKA Post fixed operator) it used, it
> was at least as easy to use as a normal one, and for some purposes, even
> easier.

Easier for ALL purposes IMO, but then I've owned a dozen or more HP
calculators and don't know one REAL engineer who doesn't prefer RPN.

Trevor.

Scott Dorsey

July 4th 11, 01:12 PM

Bill Graham > wrote:
>William Sommerwerck wrote:
>>
>> Handguns are used in war.
>
>Yes. And, at the time the constitution was written, they were the chief
>tools used in war. Especially when you read the words, "keep and bear". It
>is hard to bear a tank.

No, when the constitution was written, they were pretty close to worthless.
By the time you have the cartridge in the derringer and the primer in the
pan and everything set, the highwayman has already taken everything. If
you did manage to shoot it at someone, the rifled barrel and very low muzzle
velocity means you probably won't hit them or do that much damage. You're
better off just beating them on the head with the things.

Long guns back then were okay; still lower velocity due to slow-burning
powder and poor manufacturing tolerances (which incidentally makes them
really interesting to record), but handguns didn't provide much physical
protection. Back then they didn't even bother issuing them to officers.

The first time I ever used the new Nagra IV was recording 18th century
weapons for a film sound track. That was also my introduction to outdoor
acoustics too....
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Arny Krueger

July 4th 11, 01:12 PM

"Don Pearce" > wrote in message
...

> And no, that won't happen to me. You see I don't live in a country
> where people like you think that they can take what they want by
> pointing a gun at someone.

You seem to be seriously mistaken. That's why your country has such tight
gun control! They seem to believe that there are many people around who
think that they can take what they want with a gun, and that taking guns
away from them is the best way to keep them from acting that way.

There are many people in the US who think that they could take what they
want by pointing a gun at someone. That is just common sense.

There are many people in the US who think that they could take what they
want without even pointing a gun at someone. That is also just common sense.

I think that I could do it either way, were I to be that stupid.

So why don't we do it? Various reasons, but in the end we choose other means
to obtain what we want.

IMO honesty is the best scam. ;-)

Neil Gould

July 4th 11, 03:52 PM

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Bill Graham > wrote:
>> William Sommerwerck wrote:
>>>
>>> Handguns are used in war.
>>
>> Yes. And, at the time the constitution was written, they were the
>> chief tools used in war. Especially when you read the words, "keep
>> and bear". It is hard to bear a tank.
>
> No, when the constitution was written, they were pretty close to
> worthless. By the time you have the cartridge in the derringer and
> the primer in the pan and everything set, the highwayman has already
> taken everything.
>
Henry Derringer produced his pistol well after the Constitution was written.
http://www.derringerpistol.com/

Although they did take cartridges, there was no primer or pan involved.

> Long guns back then were okay; still lower velocity due to
> slow-burning powder and poor manufacturing tolerances (which
> incidentally makes them really interesting to record), but handguns
> didn't provide much physical protection. Back then they didn't even
> bother issuing them to officers.
>
Long guns were prevalent because they had practical uses beyond defense.
Except for vegetarians, they were likely to be one's primary means of
obtaining meat for meals. But, they were also handy when we decided to
declare independence. ;-)

--
Happy 4th to my fellow US citizens!

Neil

Scott Dorsey

July 4th 11, 04:13 PM

Neil Gould > wrote:
>Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>
>> No, when the constitution was written, they were pretty close to
>> worthless. By the time you have the cartridge in the derringer and
>> the primer in the pan and everything set, the highwayman has already
>> taken everything.
>>
>Henry Derringer produced his pistol well after the Constitution was written.
>http://www.derringerpistol.com/

Hmm, you're right! I had no idea how modern the derringer pattern was.

>Although they did take cartridges, there was no primer or pan involved.

Yes, it seems that was something of an innovation at the time. I was
thinking of flintlock pistolets.

>> Long guns back then were okay; still lower velocity due to
>> slow-burning powder and poor manufacturing tolerances (which
>> incidentally makes them really interesting to record), but handguns
>> didn't provide much physical protection. Back then they didn't even
>> bother issuing them to officers.
>>
>Long guns were prevalent because they had practical uses beyond defense.
>Except for vegetarians, they were likely to be one's primary means of
>obtaining meat for meals. But, they were also handy when we decided to
>declare independence. ;-)

Precisely! Although frankly the nice thing about chickens and cows is
that you don't have to shoot them....
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Neil Gould

July 4th 11, 06:41 PM

Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> Neil Gould > wrote:
>>
>> Long guns were prevalent because they had practical uses beyond
>> defense. Except for vegetarians, they were likely to be one's
>> primary means of obtaining meat for meals. But, they were also handy
>> when we decided to declare independence. ;-)
>
> Precisely! Although frankly the nice thing about chickens and cows is
> that you don't have to shoot them....
>
I dunno... the idea of choking a cow does not appeal to me... I'd still
employ Sharon Angle's Second Amendment Options if faced with the task. ;-)

--
Neil

Bill Graham

July 4th 11, 10:51 PM

Trevor wrote:
> "Bill Graham" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Yes. And New York (city) has the most restrictive anti-gun laws in
>> the country.... So, "go figure" that.
>
> Simple, criminals have easy access to guns there, and don't obey the
> laws anyway!
> In many other countries access to guns is very difficult, so only the
> really determined ones have guns.
>
> Trevor.

So what you are saying is thqt criminals have easy access to guns in New
York, and this is what causes all the gun deaths there? Criminals will
always have eaqsy access to guns no matter where they live, so there is
nothing special or different about New York. The only point I am trying to
make is that honest people will obey the law and not keep guns, no matter
where they live, especially if there are restrictive gun laws there. this is
a bad situation. We need to get guns into the hands of the honest people,
and statistics bear this out. In places where there are no restrictive gun
laws, the crime rate goes down.

Lets put it this way. If you were a mugger, and made your living by
stealing from people on the street, where would you rather live and work? In
New York, where there are restrictive gun laws, or in some little town in
Arizona where people are encouraged to carry guns and like 10 to 20 percent
of them do?

This is a no-brainer. You would pack up and go to New York ASAP.

Bill Graham

July 4th 11, 10:59 PM

geoff wrote:
> "Bill Graham" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> When it comes to preventing crime, I know that it has failed. Only
>> the stupid liberals can't understand that.
>
> Well the country I live in would probably be (even the wildy
> conservative fringe) considered 'liberal'. We have no legally carried
> handguns (registered collectors in gun-safes only), and very strict
> controls on rifles and shotguns. And very few crimes committed with
> handguns (or guns in general).
>
> By your reckoning, the should be heaps of crimes committed with
> illegal instances of these weapons (they are around, apparently), because
> nobody has one for defence !
>
> geoff

This may well be the case where you live, but here in the United States, the
towns that have the most restrictive gun laws, (like New York City) have the
highest crime rates. This is because there are millions of guns in this
country, and criminals have no trouble getting one. but the honest people,
trying to obey the law, don't, and the criminals, knowing this, are
attracted to these cities and practice their criminality there. If there was
some way to make all the guns disappear, then perhaps this wouldn't be the
case. /but then, what would happen if a foreign army invaded? Without any
guns in the hands of the citizenry, they would be defenceless against the
invaders.

What is interesting to me, is why there isn't more crime in Switzerland,
where many houses have guns just for taking part in the defense of their
country. Is it because these guns are rifles and not handguns? So muggers
can't carry them easily on the street? Or could it be because their country
doesn't have the millions of riff-raff hangers-on who don't have jobs and
have to make a living by stealing from other people? Or both......

Bill Graham

July 4th 11, 11:07 PM

John Williamson wrote:
> I'm afraid that Mr. Graham is so far embedded in his fantasy that he
> can't get back to reality.

Why can't you carry on a reasonable discussion with me without disparaging
my character? What, exactly have I said that is so unreasonable? I carry a
gun. I have done so fo9r my entire aqdult life. I have some good reasons for
this. The crime statistics bear those reasons out. So, I believe I have done
the right thing. Also, the second amend gives me the right to, "keep and
bear arms", so I believe I am not breaking the law.

Why can't you stick to the issues and demonstrate to me why my logic is bad,
instead of just throwing mud? And, if you cannot do this, why don't you just
shut up?

Most local junior colleges teach debating, and have a debating team. Why
don't you join one of these and learn how to formulate an opinion and
discuss it rationally? You know, you could be wrong, and actually learn
something by sticking to the issues.

Bill Graham

July 4th 11, 11:13 PM

John Williamson wrote:
> Bill Graham wrote:
>> John Williamson wrote:
>>> Bill Graham wrote:
>>>> Don Pearce wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 3 Jul 2011 12:39:13 -0700, "Bill Graham"
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Don Pearce wrote:
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In that case, the same document outlines a method of changing
>>>>>> itself, so you should avail yourselves of that method, and CHANGE
>>>>>> IT! Wouldn't this be far preferable to intentionally distorting
>>>>>> the meaning to suit your own purposes? After all, sometime in the
>>>>>> future, someone else will intentionally distort the document to
>>>>>> suit their own purposes, and take away some freedom that you
>>>>>> personally value very highly. And, when that happens, you will
>>>>>> have no one to blame but yourself. After all, you helped
>>>>>> establish the precedent.
>>>>>
>>>>> You accuse me of distorting meaning? You, who at the start of this
>>>>> conversation wouldn't even acknowledge the existence of the first
>>>>> part.
>>>>
>>>> Of course I axknowledge the existence of the first part. I just
>>>> know that it isn't5 part of the law. The first part of a compound
>>>> sentence doesn't have to have anything to do with the second part.
>>>> The law incorporated in the second amendment consists of the
>>>> second half of its compound sentence. In my opinion the first part
>>>> is a justification for the law, and helps us to know what went
>>>> through the minds of the writers of the amendment. They were
>>>> talking about assault weapons, and not hunting or target weapons.
>>>
>>> So, you are saying that, in your opinion, the Founding Fathers
>>> approved of citizens holding weapons (Guns are not mentioned at any
>>> point in the second amendment) to be used in the defence of the
>>> State, but do not approve of citizens holding them for other
>>> purposes? You are, in effect, saying that it should be illegal for
>>> citizens to
>>> carry weapons while going about their daily business.
>>>
>>> If you think that's a bad law, there are democratic processes in
>>> place to change it, which are provably more effective than
>>> individuals deliberately breaking it, as you do.
>>
>> I am not deliberately breaking anything. The amendment reads,
>> "....the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
>> abridged." What does that mean to you? Also, SCOTUS has said on
>> several occasions that laws made that are repugnant to the
>> Constitution are null and void. I am, in fact the only one who is
>> obeying the law. Exactly how do you justify saying that I am
>> breaking it?
>
> By your own admission earlier in the thread that you deliberately
> break the law on carrying concealed weapons, as *you* consider it
> unenforceable and hence a "bad law", and that you have a duty to break
> bad laws.
>
> ICBA cutting and pasting a quote, but it's there.....

I deliberately break laws that are repugnant to the Constitution. Not only
that, but I believe every good citizen should be honor bound to do so, so I
am just being a good citizen. My mantra is what Spencer Tracy said in,
"Judgement at Nuremberg"..... It is not the right, but the responsibility,
for good citizens to break bad laws.

Laws made in defiance of the Constitution are bad laws, and should
be.....No, MUST be disobeyed. Otherwise, the document will become less and
less valid, and we will lose the very basis of our free country forever.

Bill Graham

July 4th 11, 11:18 PM

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Bill Graham > wrote:
>> William Sommerwerck wrote:
>>>
>>> Handguns are used in war.
>>
>> Yes. And, at the time the constitution was written, they were the
>> chief tools used in war. Especially when you read the words, "keep
>> and bear". It is hard to bear a tank.
>
> No, when the constitution was written, they were pretty close to
> worthless. By the time you have the cartridge in the derringer and
> the primer in the pan and everything set, the highwayman has already
> taken everything. If you did manage to shoot it at someone, the
> rifled barrel and very low muzzle velocity means you probably won't
> hit them or do that much damage. You're better off just beating them
> on the head with the things.
>
> Long guns back then were okay; still lower velocity due to
> slow-burning powder and poor manufacturing tolerances (which
> incidentally makes them really interesting to record), but handguns
> didn't provide much physical protection. Back then they didn't even
> bother issuing them to officers.
>
> The first time I ever used the new Nagra IV was recording 18th century
> weapons for a film sound track. That was also my introduction to
> outdoor acoustics too....
> --scott

When I was in the Navy, back in '56 - '60, every ship's quarterdeck crew
wore a colt 45 on their waist. I don't know if they still do that today. But
most policemen carry a concealed weapon even when they are off duty. And its
a good thing, too. They have been able to prevent many crimes by doing so. I
wish the law dictated that everyone had to carry one. Talk about making all
the muggers leave town!

Bill Graham

July 4th 11, 11:23 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Don Pearce" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> And no, that won't happen to me. You see I don't live in a country
>> where people like you think that they can take what they want by
>> pointing a gun at someone.
>
> You seem to be seriously mistaken. That's why your country has such
> tight gun control! They seem to believe that there are many people
> around who think that they can take what they want with a gun, and
> that taking guns away from them is the best way to keep them from
> acting that way.
> There are many people in the US who think that they could take what
> they want by pointing a gun at someone. That is just common sense.
>
> There are many people in the US who think that they could take what
> they want without even pointing a gun at someone. That is also just
> common sense.
> I think that I could do it either way, were I to be that stupid.
>
> So why don't we do it? Various reasons, but in the end we choose
> other means to obtain what we want.
>
> IMO honesty is the best scam. ;-)

In WW-II, his country had to be armed by the United States. (Which was easy
for us to do, because we had so damned many of them!) If they are attacked
again, I wonder what they will do? Certainly they don't have any kind of,
"standing militia" amongst their people. Will the3y be able to get several
million handguns into the hands of their people in time? I doubt it. And,
even if they could, most of them wouldn't know how to use them.

William Sommerwerck

July 5th 11, 12:17 AM

"Bill Graham" > wrote in message
...

> Also, the Second Amendment gives me the right to "keep
> and bear arms", so I believe I am not breaking the law.

Wrong. The Second Amendment /does not/ give you the right to keep and bear
arms. It /protects/ your right to keep and bear arms. There is a huge
difference.

William Sommerwerck

July 5th 11, 02:01 AM

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
...

> I dunno... the idea of choking a cow does not appeal to me...

That's why they have huge chain saws... Here, Bossy, Bossy, Bossy...

Bill Graham

July 5th 11, 02:06 AM

William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "Bill Graham" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Also, the Second Amendment gives me the right to "keep
>> and bear arms", so I believe I am not breaking the law.
>
> Wrong. The Second Amendment /does not/ give you the right to keep and
> bear arms. It /protects/ your right to keep and bear arms. There is a
> huge difference.

You are right. But in the context of this discussion, it means the same
thing. I believe I have the right to carry a pistol, in my pocket, and any
local law that prohibits this is, IMO, unconstitutional, because it abridges
that right, which men have had for centuries. Also, on the face of it, laws
which prohibit my right to keep and carry are unenforceable. Modern guns are
small and made of lightweight alloys and exhotic metals (like titanium) that
are so easy to carry concealed that it makes a mockery of their stupid law.
Sure, they can set up metal detectors everywhere, but these will go off for
car keys, pocket knives, rouge compacts, digital cameras, and a whole
variety of other stuff that would be a nightmare for thosw who are
attempting to enforce such laws.

Trevor

July 5th 11, 03:20 AM

"Bill Graham" > wrote in message
...
> In WW-II, his country had to be armed by the United States.

And England. But then NZ was never attacked so the civilians never needed
them anyway!

>If they are attacked again, I wonder what they will do? Certainly they
>don't have any kind of, "standing militia" amongst their people. Will the3y
>be able to get several million handguns into the hands of their people in
>time? I doubt it. And, even if they could, most of them wouldn't know how
>to use them.

As if a handgun would be much use against a missile, so who the hell cares!

Trevor.

Trevor

July 5th 11, 03:23 AM

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
...
>> Precisely! Although frankly the nice thing about chickens and cows is
>> that you don't have to shoot them....
>>
> I dunno... the idea of choking a cow does not appeal to me... I'd still
> employ Sharon Angle's Second Amendment Options if faced with the task.
> ;-)

But billions are killed in abbotoirs without the use of guns. A knife is all
you need.

Trevor.

timewarp2008

July 5th 11, 03:25 AM

On Jul 4, 6:07*pm, "Bill Graham" > wrote:
> John Williamson wrote:
> > I'm afraid that Mr. Graham is so far embedded in his fantasy that he
> > can't get back to reality.
>
> Why can't you carry on a reasonable discussion with me without disparaging
> my character?

He wasn't disparaging your character. He was disparaging your
intelligence, common
sense, sanity, your grasp of reality, but not your character. You're a
moron, and you
are totally out of touch wiht the real world. You live in your own
Little Willie Bizarro
Fantasy world. And you have shown neither the intelligence, ability,
or desire to carry
on a reasonable discussion.

There are plenty of reasons to disparage your character. You're an
whiner, a troll,
a coward, a criminal, a criminal who blusters and boasts about being a
criminal,
a clueless turd, and a persistent and malicious troll. Those, and
more, are plenty
of reason to disparage your character.

But he wasn't doing that. He was just pointing out that you live in a
fantasy world.
You've gone to enormous lengths to prove that, over and over again. So
what's
your problem with someone agreeing with you?

> Most local junior colleges teach debating, and have a debating team.

.... as old-fashioned irony meters all across Usenet explode ...

Trevor

July 5th 11, 03:34 AM

"Bill Graham" > wrote in message
...
> So what you are saying is thqt criminals have easy access to guns in New
> York, and this is what causes all the gun deaths there?

Pretty much, of course without guns they'd still find other ways to kill,
but probably a lot fewer as in similar cities elsewhere in the world that
have very few guns.

>Criminals will always have eaqsy access to guns no matter where they live,

Rubbish, access here is definitely *NOT* easy, very few criminals have them,
and our murder rate by shooting is FAR less than the USA, as is the overall
murder rate.

> so there is nothing special or different about New York. The only point I
> am trying to make is that honest people will obey the law and not keep
> guns, no matter where they live, especially if there are restrictive gun
> laws there. this is a bad situation. We need to get guns into the hands of
> the honest people, and statistics bear this out. In places where there are
> no restrictive gun laws, the crime rate goes down.

Nope, the lowest crime rates are in countries with tough gun laws, NOT the
USA.

> Lets put it this way. If you were a mugger, and made your living by
> stealing from people on the street, where would you rather live and work?
> In New York, where there are restrictive gun laws, or in some little town
> in Arizona where people are encouraged to carry guns and like 10 to 20
> percent of them do?
> This is a no-brainer. You would pack up and go to New York ASAP.

Of course, since you can buy your guns elsewhere in the USA. It needs to be
all or nothing.
Over here you get arrested for carrying a knife, let alone a gun!

Trevor.

Trevor

July 5th 11, 03:40 AM

"Bill Graham" > wrote in message
...
> When I was in the Navy, back in '56 - '60, every ship's quarterdeck crew
> wore a colt 45 on their waist. I don't know if they still do that today.
> But most policemen carry a concealed weapon even when they are off duty.
> And its a good thing, too. They have been able to prevent many crimes by
> doing so. I wish the law dictated that everyone had to carry one. Talk
> about making all the muggers leave town!

Right, just as all the gang members that carry guns have done knowing the
other gang members have them too?
Oh wait, the gang members are still there, and still shoot each other don't
they? As well as many innocent people of course!

Trevor.

timewarp2008

July 5th 11, 03:41 AM

On Jul 4, 5:59*pm, "Bill Graham" > wrote:
> This may well be the case where you live, but here in the United States, the
> towns that have the most restrictive gun laws, (like New York City) have the
> highest crime rates.

I'd challenge you to back that up with some unbiased facts,
but you'd just ignore the challenge or change the subject,
and besides, your fantasy world isn't based on facts anyway,

> What is interesting to me, is why there isn't more crime in Switzerland,
> where many houses have guns just for taking part in the defense of their
> country. Is it because these guns are rifles and not handguns?

Maybe because, unlike you, they're not obsessed with guns,
and they probably aren't all criminals like you, illegally carrying
concealed weapons around all the time to make them feel like
brave and powerful little cowards. (Yes, I'm disparaging your
character; I know you have a hard time recognizing such things,
or understanding what people tell you when the voices in your
head are distracting you.)

timewarp2008

July 5th 11, 03:46 AM

On Jun 29, 4:59*am, "Gareth Magennis" >
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" .
> > --
> > Tom McCreadie
>
> > Live at The London Palindrome - ABBA
>
> And PLEASE learn the difference between "their", "there" and "they're".
> It will only take 2 minutes. *Really.
>
> Gareth.

And please stop pronouncing the plural noun "processes" as
if it were "processeez", and stop pronouncing "et cetera" as
"eck cetera".

William Sommerwerck

July 5th 11, 04:08 AM

"Trevor" > wrote in message
u...
> "Neil Gould" > wrote in message
> ...

>>> Precisely! Although frankly the nice thing about chickens
>>> and cows is that you don't have to shoot them...

>> I dunno... the idea of choking a cow does not appeal to me...
>> I'd still employ Sharon Angle's Second Amendment Options
>> if faced with the task.;-)

> But billions are killed in abbotoirs without the use of guns. A knife
> is all you need.

There are all sorts of "guns" -- see "No Country for Old Men".

John Williamson

July 5th 11, 04:38 AM

Bill Graham wrote:
>
> What is interesting to me, is why there isn't more crime in Switzerland,
> where many houses have guns just for taking part in the defense of their
> country. Is it because these guns are rifles and not handguns? So
> muggers can't carry them easily on the street? Or could it be because
> their country doesn't have the millions of riff-raff hangers-on who
> don't have jobs and have to make a living by stealing from other people?
> Or both......

Or neither. Every person in Switzerland who holds a a weapon at their
home, which is, effectively, every male adult and a high percentage of
females, has been trained by the military in their use, and has been
through military training, which instils a sense of discipline in them.
Also, they are held fully accountable for that weapon and the (Sealed
box of) ammunition. They are also required by law to undergo periodic
military refresher training.

http://stason.org/TULARC/travel/swiss-switzerland/3-2-1-Switzerland-Military-service.htm

Gives you most of the details. They are required to hold and bear arms
as part of a well-regulated militia, which is where we were a while ago
in this thread regarding the USA's secnd amendment.

To understand why there is little crime in Switzerland, you need to vist
the country, and not just as a tourist.

Random examples. You are not allowed to cross the street within 50
metres of a marked pedestrian crossing, and the police do issue tickets
to offenders. It is against the law to flush your toilet after 10pm if
you live in an apartment block and you *will* be reported to the
authorities if you do. Both these laws are seen as reasonable and
necessary. They have a large number of local and national referendums
each year, so that if they don't like a particular law, they know that
over half the people who care either way, voted for that law.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

John Williamson

July 5th 11, 04:39 AM

timewarp2008 wrote:
> On Jul 4, 6:07 pm, "Bill Graham" > wrote:
>> John Williamson wrote:
>>> I'm afraid that Mr. Graham is so far embedded in his fantasy that he
>>> can't get back to reality.
>> Why can't you carry on a reasonable discussion with me without disparaging
>> my character?
>
> He wasn't disparaging your character. He was disparaging your
> intelligence, common
> sense, sanity, your grasp of reality, but not your character. You're a
> moron, and you
> are totally out of touch wiht the real world. You live in your own
> Little Willie Bizarro
> Fantasy world. And you have shown neither the intelligence, ability,
> or desire to carry
> on a reasonable discussion.
>
> There are plenty of reasons to disparage your character. You're an
> whiner, a troll,
> a coward, a criminal, a criminal who blusters and boasts about being a
> criminal,
> a clueless turd, and a persistent and malicious troll. Those, and
> more, are plenty
> of reason to disparage your character.
>
> But he wasn't doing that. He was just pointing out that you live in a
> fantasy world.
> You've gone to enormous lengths to prove that, over and over again. So
> what's
> your problem with someone agreeing with you?
>
>> Most local junior colleges teach debating, and have a debating team.
>
> ... as old-fashioned irony meters all across Usenet explode ...
>
>
By Jove, that just saved me lot of typing...

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

hank alrich

July 5th 11, 07:15 AM

timewarp2008 > wrote:

> > Most local junior colleges teach debating, and have a debating team.
>
> ... as old-fashioned irony meters all across Usenet explode ...

Ironing meters out all the wrinkles.

HTH

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpqXcV9DYAc
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

hank alrich

July 5th 11, 07:15 AM

Bill Graham > wrote:

> But
> most policemen carry a concealed weapon even when they are off duty. And its
> a good thing, too.

Years ago, right after I arrived where I currently dwell, a sheriff's
deputy enjoyed having his concelaed handgun go off...

....in his boot.

It was one of those "the jokes just write themselves" moments.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpqXcV9DYAc
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

Scott Dorsey

July 5th 11, 02:35 PM

Bill Graham > wrote:
>
>Why can't you carry on a reasonable discussion with me without disparaging
>my character? What, exactly have I said that is so unreasonable? I carry a
>gun. I have done so fo9r my entire aqdult life. I have some good reasons for
>this. The crime statistics bear those reasons out. So, I believe I have done
>the right thing. Also, the second amend gives me the right to, "keep and
>bear arms", so I believe I am not breaking the law.

A lot of things you have said are unreasonable. For example, your equating
"liberals" with "idiots" with "people who want to take my guns away." You
make connections between unrelated ideas and concepts and in the process insult
many people. People don't like being insulted.

>Why can't you stick to the issues and demonstrate to me why my logic is bad,
>instead of just throwing mud? And, if you cannot do this, why don't you just
>shut up?

Because he's tired of your insulting him.
--scott

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

Scott Dorsey

July 5th 11, 02:37 PM

Bill Graham > wrote:
>
>When I was in the Navy, back in '56 - '60, every ship's quarterdeck crew
>wore a colt 45 on their waist. I don't know if they still do that today.

They still do. But why? Hint: there's not much you can do against an enemy
when you're in a ship in the middle of the ocean, using a revolver. It's
not for that....
--scott

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

[email protected]

July 5th 11, 05:39 PM

On 2011-07-05 (ScottDorsey) said:
>>Why can't you stick to the issues and demonstrate to me why my
>>logic is bad, instead of just throwing mud? And, if you cannot do
>>this, why don't you just shut up?
>Because he's tired of your insulting him.

INdeed, and even on audio topics MR. Graham hurls insults at
people who've tried to inform him, in every thread he's
involved himself in since he first appeared on this
newsgroup. Many of us, including MR. Dorsey have been the
targets of this old ignormant fool's insults, so of course
we disrespect him.

To BIll: PUt your pistol to your temple and get religion.
Also to bill: See the tag line.

Richard webb,

replace anything before at with elspider

You are depriving some poor village of it's IDIOT.

Bill Graham

July 5th 11, 10:11 PM

Trevor wrote:
> "Bill Graham" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In WW-II, his country had to be armed by the United States.
>
> And England. But then NZ was never attacked so the civilians never
> needed them anyway!
>
>> If they are attacked again, I wonder what they will do? Certainly
>> they don't have any kind of, "standing militia" amongst their
>> people. Will the3y be able to get several million handguns into the
>> hands of their people in time? I doubt it. And, even if they could,
>> most of them wouldn't know how to use them.
>
> As if a handgun would be much use against a missile, so who the hell
> cares!
> Trevor.

Missles don't win wars. In the final analysis, somebody, armed with a
portable gun, has to come to your door and drag you out into the street. If
every house on the block contains a citizen (or two) armed with a handgun,
then you are going to have a real hard time "winning" your war......

Bill Graham

July 5th 11, 10:14 PM

Trevor wrote:
> "Bill Graham" > wrote in message
> ...
>> So what you are saying is thqt criminals have easy access to guns in
>> New York, and this is what causes all the gun deaths there?
>
> Pretty much, of course without guns they'd still find other ways to
> kill, but probably a lot fewer as in similar cities elsewhere in the
> world that have very few guns.
>
>> Criminals will always have eaqsy access to guns no matter where they
>> live,
>
> Rubbish, access here is definitely *NOT* easy, very few criminals
> have them, and our murder rate by shooting is FAR less than the USA,
> as is the overall murder rate.
>
>
>> so there is nothing special or different about New York. The only
>> point I am trying to make is that honest people will obey the law
>> and not keep guns, no matter where they live, especially if there
>> are restrictive gun laws there. this is a bad situation. We need to
>> get guns into the hands of the honest people, and statistics bear
>> this out. In places where there are no restrictive gun laws, the
>> crime rate goes down.
>
> Nope, the lowest crime rates are in countries with tough gun laws,
> NOT the USA.
>
>
>> Lets put it this way. If you were a mugger, and made your living by
>> stealing from people on the street, where would you rather live and
>> work? In New York, where there are restrictive gun laws, or in some
>> little town in Arizona where people are encouraged to carry guns and
>> like 10 to 20 percent of them do?
>> This is a no-brainer. You would pack up and go to New York ASAP.
>
> Of course, since you can buy your guns elsewhere in the USA. It needs
> to be all or nothing.
> Over here you get arrested for carrying a knife, let alone a gun!
>
> Trevor.

Yes. And I need a knife just to break into the new candy bars.... I am sure
glad I live here, where I can carry one. (and a gun too)

Bill Graham

July 5th 11, 10:17 PM

Trevor wrote:
> "Bill Graham" > wrote in message
> ...
>> When I was in the Navy, back in '56 - '60, every ship's quarterdeck
>> crew wore a colt 45 on their waist. I don't know if they still do
>> that today. But most policemen carry a concealed weapon even when
>> they are off duty. And its a good thing, too. They have been able to
>> prevent many crimes by doing so. I wish the law dictated that
>> everyone had to carry one. Talk about making all the muggers leave
>> town!
>
> Right, just as all the gang members that carry guns have done knowing
> the other gang members have them too?
> Oh wait, the gang members are still there, and still shoot each other
> don't they? As well as many innocent people of course!
>
> Trevor.

But they avoid places like small towns in Arizona where the citizens are
encouraged to carry guns. Why do you think there are so many gang members in
the big cities? (where gun ownership is outlawed)

Bill Graham

July 5th 11, 10:25 PM

John Williamson wrote:
> Bill Graham wrote:
>>
>> What is interesting to me, is why there isn't more crime in
>> Switzerland, where many houses have guns just for taking part in the
>> defense of their country. Is it because these guns are rifles and
>> not handguns? So muggers can't carry them easily on the street? Or
>> could it be because their country doesn't have the millions of
>> riff-raff hangers-on who don't have jobs and have to make a living
>> by stealing from other people? Or both......
>
> Or neither. Every person in Switzerland who holds a a weapon at their
> home, which is, effectively, every male adult and a high percentage of
> females, has been trained by the military in their use, and has been
> through military training, which instils a sense of discipline in
> them. Also, they are held fully accountable for that weapon and the
> (Sealed box of) ammunition. They are also required by law to undergo
> periodic military refresher training.
>
> http://stason.org/TULARC/travel/swiss-switzerland/3-2-1-Switzerland-Military-service.htm
>
> Gives you most of the details. They are required to hold and bear arms
> as part of a well-regulated militia, which is where we were a while
> ago in this thread regarding the USA's secnd amendment.
>
> To understand why there is little crime in Switzerland, you need to
> vist the country, and not just as a tourist.
>
> Random examples. You are not allowed to cross the street within 50
> metres of a marked pedestrian crossing, and the police do issue
> tickets to offenders. It is against the law to flush your toilet
> after 10pm if you live in an apartment block and you *will* be
> reported to the authorities if you do. Both these laws are seen as
> reasonable and necessary. They have a large number of local and
> national referendums each year, so that if they don't like a
> particular law, they know that over half the people who care either
> way, voted for that law.

Here, it doesn't matter if everyone voted for a law. If it takes away
someone's Constitutional rights, then it will be overturned by the courts.
this has happened many times in my old state of residence, California, where
the people are so uneducated in constitutional law that they rush to the
poles to take away each other's constitutional rights in droves every
election. What on earth would you have a law against flushing your toilet
after 10 PM for? Suppose you have to go after 10 PM? what do you do then?
Here, they have toilets that flush so quietly that you can't even hear them
in the next room. I know....I just bought three of them. They are made by
Toyo.... A Japanese company. And they use very little water, too.

Bill Graham

July 5th 11, 10:29 PM

John Williamson wrote:
> timewarp2008 wrote:
>> On Jul 4, 6:07 pm, "Bill Graham" > wrote:
>>> John Williamson wrote:
>>>> I'm afraid that Mr. Graham is so far embedded in his fantasy that
>>>> he can't get back to reality.
>>> Why can't you carry on a reasonable discussion with me without
>>> disparaging my character?
>>
>> He wasn't disparaging your character. He was disparaging your
>> intelligence, common
>> sense, sanity, your grasp of reality, but not your character. You're
>> a moron, and you
>> are totally out of touch wiht the real world. You live in your own
>> Little Willie Bizarro
>> Fantasy world. And you have shown neither the intelligence, ability,
>> or desire to carry
>> on a reasonable discussion.
>>
>> There are plenty of reasons to disparage your character. You're an
>> whiner, a troll,
>> a coward, a criminal, a criminal who blusters and boasts about being
>> a criminal,
>> a clueless turd, and a persistent and malicious troll. Those, and
>> more, are plenty
>> of reason to disparage your character.
>>
>> But he wasn't doing that. He was just pointing out that you live in a
>> fantasy world.
>> You've gone to enormous lengths to prove that, over and over again.
>> So what's
>> your problem with someone agreeing with you?
>>
>>> Most local junior colleges teach debating, and have a debating team.
>>
>> ... as old-fashioned irony meters all across Usenet explode ...
>>
>>
> By Jove, that just saved me lot of typing...

And so what's your point? What has any of that to do with our constitutional
right to keep and bear arms?

The fact of the matter is this. You can't refute the logic of my arguments.
So, you throw mud at me. This is juvenile and meaningless, and doesn't
convince anyone with any common sense of the surpeiority of your position.

Bill Graham

July 5th 11, 10:33 PM

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Bill Graham > wrote:
>>
>> Why can't you carry on a reasonable discussion with me without
>> disparaging my character? What, exactly have I said that is so
>> unreasonable? I carry a gun. I have done so fo9r my entire aqdult
>> life. I have some good reasons for this. The crime statistics bear
>> those reasons out. So, I believe I have done the right thing. Also,
>> the second amend gives me the right to, "keep and bear arms", so I
>> believe I am not breaking the law.
>
> A lot of things you have said are unreasonable. For example, your
> equating "liberals" with "idiots" with "people who want to take my
> guns away." You make connections between unrelated ideas and
> concepts and in the process insult many people. People don't like
> being insulted.
>
>> Why can't you stick to the issues and demonstrate to me why my logic
>> is bad, instead of just throwing mud? And, if you cannot do this,
>> why don't you just shut up?
>
> Because he's tired of your insulting him.
> --scott

You call me bieng right, and you being wrong, "insulting to you"? If I am
wrong, then give me some logical answer to my assertions, and stop being a
stupid liberal.....:^)

Bill Graham

July 5th 11, 10:34 PM

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Bill Graham > wrote:
>>
>> When I was in the Navy, back in '56 - '60, every ship's quarterdeck
>> crew wore a colt 45 on their waist. I don't know if they still do
>> that today.
>
> They still do. But why? Hint: there's not much you can do against
> an enemy when you're in a ship in the middle of the ocean, using a
> revolver. It's not for that....
> --scott

This was while in port, and not at sea. At sea there was no quarterdeck
watch....A rogue wave would wash such a watch over the side.

John Williamson

July 5th 11, 10:37 PM

Bill Graham wrote:
<<Switzerland>>
>> Random examples. You are not allowed to cross the street within 50
>> metres of a marked pedestrian crossing, and the police do issue
>> tickets to offenders. It is against the law to flush your toilet
>> after 10pm if you live in an apartment block and you *will* be
>> reported to the authorities if you do. Both these laws are seen as
>> reasonable and necessary. They have a large number of local and
>> national referendums each year, so that if they don't like a
>> particular law, they know that over half the people who care either
>> way, voted for that law.
>
> Here, it doesn't matter if everyone voted for a law. If it takes away
> someone's Constitutional rights, then it will be overturned by the
> courts. this has happened many times in my old state of residence,
> California, where the people are so uneducated in constitutional law
> that they rush to the poles
I think you mean polls....

to take away each other's constitutional
> rights in droves every election. What on earth would you have a law
> against flushing your toilet after 10 PM for?

To avoid disturbing other residents. Part of being a good neighbour.

Suppose you have to go
> after 10 PM? what do you do then?
You leave it to stew or wait until the morning. It's the accepted way.

Here, they have toilets that flush so
> quietly that you can't even hear them in the next room. I know....I just
> bought three of them. They are made by Toyo.... A Japanese company. And
> they use very little water, too.

It's not just the toilet flushing, it's the noise of the result
travelling through the plumbing that's the problem. Dropping that amount
of semi-fluid matter down a fifty foot drop makes a noise no matter what
you do. You might not hear it, but the guy ten floors down certainly does.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

Bill Graham

July 5th 11, 10:40 PM

wrote:
> On 2011-07-05 (ScottDorsey) said:
> >>Why can't you stick to the issues and demonstrate to me why my
> >>logic is bad, instead of just throwing mud? And, if you cannot do
> >>this, why don't you just shut up?
> >Because he's tired of your insulting him.
>
> INdeed, and even on audio topics MR. Graham hurls insults at
> people who've tried to inform him, in every thread he's
> involved himself in since he first appeared on this
> newsgroup. Many of us, including MR. Dorsey have been the
> targets of this old ignormant fool's insults, so of course
> we disrespect him.
>
> To BIll: PUt your pistol to your temple and get religion.
> Also to bill: See the tag line.
>
Anyone who goes back and reads these peots, and says that I am the one who
does all the insulting, and you guys are the ones who stick to the issues
and offer up reasonable arguments, must be out of their minds. In fact,
exactly the opposite is trueThe facts are simple. When backed into a corner
by my logic, you guys resort to spewing insults instead of having the good
manners to admit defeat.

Since that is the case, and I am obviously surrounded by idiots, I will bow
out of this group and let you stew in your own stupidity. There is no sense
to my wasting my time with you.

Bill Graham

July 5th 11, 10:49 PM

John Williamson wrote:
> Bill Graham wrote:
> <<Switzerland>>
>>> Random examples. You are not allowed to cross the street within 50
>>> metres of a marked pedestrian crossing, and the police do issue
>>> tickets to offenders. It is against the law to flush your toilet
>>> after 10pm if you live in an apartment block and you *will* be
>>> reported to the authorities if you do. Both these laws are seen as
>>> reasonable and necessary. They have a large number of local and
>>> national referendums each year, so that if they don't like a
>>> particular law, they know that over half the people who care either
>>> way, voted for that law.
>>
>> Here, it doesn't matter if everyone voted for a law. If it takes away
>> someone's Constitutional rights, then it will be overturned by the
>> courts. this has happened many times in my old state of residence,
>> California, where the people are so uneducated in constitutional law
>> that they rush to the poles
> I think you mean polls....
>
> to take away each other's constitutional
>> rights in droves every election. What on earth would you have a law
>> against flushing your toilet after 10 PM for?
>
> To avoid disturbing other residents. Part of being a good neighbour.
>
> Suppose you have to go
>> after 10 PM? what do you do then?
> You leave it to stew or wait until the morning. It's the accepted way.
>
> Here, they have toilets that flush so
>> quietly that you can't even hear them in the next room. I know....I
>> just bought three of them. They are made by Toyo.... A Japanese
>> company. And they use very little water, too.
>
> It's not just the toilet flushing, it's the noise of the result
> travelling through the plumbing that's the problem. Dropping that
> amount of semi-fluid matter down a fifty foot drop makes a noise no
> matter what you do. You might not hear it, but the guy ten floors
> down certainly does.

Sorry, but I believe the solution to the problem is better approached by
engineering than it is by law. But thank you for reminding me why I wouldn't
want to live in Europe. These kinds of laws would drive me crazy. There are
many faces to, "freedom".

John Williamson

July 5th 11, 11:13 PM

Bill Graham wrote:
> John Williamson wrote:
>> timewarp2008 wrote:
>>> On Jul 4, 6:07 pm, "Bill Graham" > wrote:
>>>> John Williamson wrote:
>>>>> I'm afraid that Mr. Graham is so far embedded in his fantasy that
>>>>> he can't get back to reality.
>>>> Why can't you carry on a reasonable discussion with me without
>>>> disparaging my character?
>>>
>>> He wasn't disparaging your character. He was disparaging your
>>> intelligence, common
>>> sense, sanity, your grasp of reality, but not your character. You're
>>> a moron, and you
>>> are totally out of touch wiht the real world. You live in your own
>>> Little Willie Bizarro
>>> Fantasy world. And you have shown neither the intelligence, ability,
>>> or desire to carry
>>> on a reasonable discussion.
>>>
>>> There are plenty of reasons to disparage your character. You're an
>>> whiner, a troll,
>>> a coward, a criminal, a criminal who blusters and boasts about being
>>> a criminal,
>>> a clueless turd, and a persistent and malicious troll. Those, and
>>> more, are plenty
>>> of reason to disparage your character.
>>>
>>> But he wasn't doing that. He was just pointing out that you live in a
>>> fantasy world.
>>> You've gone to enormous lengths to prove that, over and over again.
>>> So what's
>>> your problem with someone agreeing with you?
>>>
>>>> Most local junior colleges teach debating, and have a debating team.
>>>
>>> ... as old-fashioned irony meters all across Usenet explode ...
>>>
>>>
>> By Jove, that just saved me lot of typing...
>
> And so what's your point? What has any of that to do with our
> constitutional right to keep and bear arms?
>
> The fact of the matter is this. You can't refute the logic of my
> arguments. So, you throw mud at me. This is juvenile and meaningless,
> and doesn't convince anyone with any common sense of the surpeiority of
> your position.

The fact is that *you* can't see the illogicality of *your* arguments.
You're the *only* poster in this thread with your extreme viewpoint.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

John Williamson

July 5th 11, 11:13 PM

Bill Graham wrote:
> wrote:
>> On 2011-07-05 (ScottDorsey) said:
>> >>Why can't you stick to the issues and demonstrate to me why my
>> >>logic is bad, instead of just throwing mud? And, if you cannot do
>> >>this, why don't you just shut up?
>> >Because he's tired of your insulting him.
>>
>> INdeed, and even on audio topics MR. Graham hurls insults at
>> people who've tried to inform him, in every thread he's
>> involved himself in since he first appeared on this
>> newsgroup. Many of us, including MR. Dorsey have been the
>> targets of this old ignormant fool's insults, so of course
>> we disrespect him.
>>
>> To BIll: PUt your pistol to your temple and get religion.
>> Also to bill: See the tag line.
>>
> Anyone who goes back and reads these peots, and says that I am the one
> who does all the insulting, and you guys are the ones who stick to the
> issues and offer up reasonable arguments, must be out of their minds. In
> fact, exactly the opposite is trueThe facts are simple. When backed into
> a corner by my logic, you guys resort to spewing insults instead of
> having the good manners to admit defeat.
>
> Since that is the case, and I am obviously surrounded by idiots, I will
> bow out of this group and let you stew in your own stupidity. There is
> no sense to my wasting my time with you.

Thank you.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

Frank Stearns

July 5th 11, 11:16 PM

writes:

>To BIll: PUt your pistol to your temple and get religion.
>Also to bill: See the tag line.

Hi Richard -

Personally, I dislike straying too far from audio in this group, but I'll do so for
a moment anyway.

I won't make a public guess as to your politics. But if you're on the left, your
suggestion to Bill in the above line feeds a stereotype -- the one that those on the
left (who generally proclaim themselves more feeling and caring) somehow ultimately
degrade into goose-steppers and want to kill or see killed those who think
differently...

(Hold up there, pardner -- I wasn't saying that YOU are a goose-stepper, I'm just
saying that some statements any of us might make can feed stereotypes.)

If you're on the right, then you're also feeding yet another stereotype, but from
that side.

This is of course a public forum, and often we complain about S/N ratios here. (And
here I am tossing in my own little blast of off-topic white noise. <w>)

But somehow the edginess of your suggestion of an ultimate-action to Bill seems out
of place, regardless of any of his "transgressions" in this public form, or how
incorrect you believe his thinking might be.

I hope you might reconsider. If you or others can't persuade him in a civil manner,
may I suggest simply ignoring him?

And then let's get back to arguing about how many bits can dance on the head of Pin
2 (or is it Pin 3?), and whether my Grace preamps are "warm" and your Millenia's
"sterile" (or is it the other way around; I forget...)

Best,

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[email protected]

July 6th 11, 12:15 AM

On 2011-07-05 said:
writes:
>>To BIll: PUt your pistol to your temple and get religion.
>>Also to bill: See the tag line.
>Personally, I dislike straying too far from audio in this group,
>but I'll do so for
>a moment anyway.
>I won't make a public guess as to your politics. But if you're on
>the left, your
>suggestion to Bill in the above line feeds a stereotype -- the one
>that those on the
>left (who generally proclaim themselves more feeling and caring)
>somehow ultimately
>degrade into goose-steppers and want to kill or see killed those
>who think differently...

Understood. AS for trying to reason with Bill, I"ve seen
many try that in this group. I tire of even seeing the
quotes of his drivel however, as you and I have both noted,
it detracts from the reason we come here. That doesn't
change the fact that those are my wishes for Bill from the
bottom of my heart. THis comes from neither the far right,
or the far left.

I enjoy a good political discussion, in the appropriate
forum, and with folks who can rationally discuss the issues
from any point of view. But, as we've all seen, folks can't
avoid quoting his articles, and they consume all the
bandwidth in this group for weeks at a time. According to
his threat he's going to frequent some other forum, and I
encourage that wholeheartedly. HE's made himself quite
unwelcome here in the last year or so.
NOw we can get back to figuring out, as you say, how many
bits can dance on the head of a pin, or arguing about the
definition of "warmer" <grin>.

Regards,

Richard webb,

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

PStamler

July 6th 11, 12:30 AM

On Jul 5, 4:40*pm, "Bill Graham" > wrote:

> Since that is the case, and I am obviously surrounded by idiots, I will bow
> out of this group and let you stew in your own stupidity. There is no sense
> to my wasting my time with you.

Bye. Don't look back.

Peace,
Paul

Scott Dorsey

July 6th 11, 12:40 AM

Bill Graham > wrote:
>And so what's your point? What has any of that to do with our constitutional
>right to keep and bear arms?

Nothing, but since this is an audio newsgroup, it doesn't really matter.

>The fact of the matter is this. You can't refute the logic of my arguments.
>So, you throw mud at me. This is juvenile and meaningless, and doesn't
>convince anyone with any common sense of the surpeiority of your position.

You're the person who first started throwing mud, and more than that, you are
the first person who started this whole irrelevant tangent that is not about
audio at all.

Please, this is an audio group. Take it to rec.politics.guns.
--scott

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

Scott Dorsey

July 6th 11, 12:44 AM

Bill Graham > wrote:
>
>You call me bieng right, and you being wrong, "insulting to you"? If I am
>wrong, then give me some logical answer to my assertions, and stop being a
>stupid liberal.....:^)

No, I call your calling everyone a stupid liberal insulting. Some people
here are liberals, some aren't. This has nothing to do with whether they
are stupid, what they think about guns, or anything about audio.

I don't CARE about your assertions. Really, nobody here does. But they
DO care about being insulted.

Do you often go up to people you meet in the supermarket and say things
like "I call you a liberal because you're stupid?" I suspect you don't
actually behave this way in real life.
--scott

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

Bill Graham

July 6th 11, 02:08 AM

John Williamson wrote:
> Bill Graham wrote:
>> John Williamson wrote:
>>> timewarp2008 wrote:
>>>> On Jul 4, 6:07 pm, "Bill Graham" > wrote:
>>>>> John Williamson wrote:
>>>>>> I'm afraid that Mr. Graham is so far embedded in his fantasy that
>>>>>> he can't get back to reality.
>>>>> Why can't you carry on a reasonable discussion with me without
>>>>> disparaging my character?
>>>>
>>>> He wasn't disparaging your character. He was disparaging your
>>>> intelligence, common
>>>> sense, sanity, your grasp of reality, but not your character.
>>>> You're a moron, and you
>>>> are totally out of touch wiht the real world. You live in your own
>>>> Little Willie Bizarro
>>>> Fantasy world. And you have shown neither the intelligence,
>>>> ability, or desire to carry
>>>> on a reasonable discussion.
>>>>
>>>> There are plenty of reasons to disparage your character. You're an
>>>> whiner, a troll,
>>>> a coward, a criminal, a criminal who blusters and boasts about
>>>> being a criminal,
>>>> a clueless turd, and a persistent and malicious troll. Those, and
>>>> more, are plenty
>>>> of reason to disparage your character.
>>>>
>>>> But he wasn't doing that. He was just pointing out that you live
>>>> in a fantasy world.
>>>> You've gone to enormous lengths to prove that, over and over again.
>>>> So what's
>>>> your problem with someone agreeing with you?
>>>>
>>>>> Most local junior colleges teach debating, and have a debating
>>>>> team.
>>>>
>>>> ... as old-fashioned irony meters all across Usenet explode ...
>>>>
>>>>
>>> By Jove, that just saved me lot of typing...
>>
>> And so what's your point? What has any of that to do with our
>> constitutional right to keep and bear arms?
>>
>> The fact of the matter is this. You can't refute the logic of my
>> arguments. So, you throw mud at me. This is juvenile and meaningless,
>> and doesn't convince anyone with any common sense of the surpeiority
>> of your position.
>
> The fact is that *you* can't see the illogicality of *your* arguments.
> You're the *only* poster in this thread with your extreme viewpoint.

Well, why can't you demonstrate the, "illogicality of my arguments", without
resorting to calling me names, or disparaging my character? Is that the best
you can do? All I am saying is that the second amendment protects my natural
right to keep and bear arms, and I have lived by this belief all of my adult
life. If you can read something else into that amendment, then please do so.
But if you can't, then why does that make me an idiot, or stupid, or a
criminal, or anything else you have called me? Why is it wrong for me to
insist that you avail yourselves of the methods outlined in the constitution
to change it, rather than misinterpreting it incorrectly for your own
purposes?

No. The logic of my position is irrifutable. You are simply, wrong. And
don't have the intellectual integrity to admit it, either. It is not worth
my time and effort to bother with you. You are like a bunch of chickens,
gathering around one of their numbers and pecking him to death. You are
disgusting in both your stupidity and dishonesty. I would be well advised to
simply break off any communication with you for that reason. Trying to carry
on any reasonable discussion with you about any subject is a complete waste
of my time.

Bill Graham

July 6th 11, 02:27 AM

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> You're the person who first started throwing mud, and more than that,
> you are the first person who started this whole irrelevant tangent
> that is not about audio at all.

Neither of these two things are true. I argue a rational position. I don't
throw mud, or call my opponents names. And, furthermore, I didn't start this
discussion. I never start such things on forums where it is not proper.
Someone else started it, or made some comment about it that I found
offensive, and caused me to jump in and correct them. That is always the
case, and when I go back and research the posts, that's what I always find.

No, you are just unhappy with me because you can't refute my logic, and my
position disagrees with yours. None of you have the intellectual integrity
to admit you are wrong, or that your position is illogical.

That's all right. I am not surprised. 75 years of living with stupid
liberals has taught me a lot about the way people think and what I can
expect from them. It is why I turned down a chance to get into law and took
up mathematics instead. It was a wise decision. It has kept my blood
pressure at a very manageable level.

Now, if I can just keep the Robin Hooders at bay, and hold on to what little
money I have left until my death, I will be home free and will have escaped
with a reasonably good life experience behind me. A lot of people have sure
done a lot worse.

Trevor

July 6th 11, 02:57 AM

"Bill Graham" > wrote in message
...

> Missles don't win wars.

Funny, I thought that was how you got Japan to surrender!
Not to mention the number of non nuclear ones you dropped on Iraq. You sure
wouldn't have "won" there without them.
(and yes I use the term "won" loosely in that case)

You had no luck against North Korea, North Vietnam, or Afghanastan using
more conventional weapons however.

>In the final analysis, somebody, armed with a portable gun, has to come to
>your door and drag you out into the street.

Only those still alive. Hell you even designed the neutron bomb so you
wouldn't have to, without even damaging the buildings!

>If every house on the block contains a citizen (or two) armed with a
>handgun, then you are going to have a real hard time "winning" your
>war......

And even if they don't apparently. Just how many North Koreans, Vietnamese,
Afghani's etc do you believe owned handguns? The real problem for your army
seems to be IED's etc. How many of those do you own I wonder?

Trevor.

Trevor

July 6th 11, 02:59 AM

"Bill Graham" > wrote in message
...
> Yes. And I need a knife just to break into the new candy bars.... I am
> sure glad I live here, where I can carry one. (and a gun too)

No wonder you need a gun if you can't open a candy bar without a knife. But
how the hell do you lift a gun I wonder?

Trevor.

Trevor

July 6th 11, 03:03 AM

"Bill Graham" > wrote in message
...
> But they avoid places like small towns in Arizona where the citizens are
> encouraged to carry guns. Why do you think there are so many gang members
> in the big cities? (where gun ownership is outlawed)

It's the nature of big cities, made worse by your poor welfare system. Our
small towns have less crime than any of yours do, even with guns outlawed
everywhere here.

Trevor.

John Williamson

July 6th 11, 06:26 AM

timewarp2008 wrote:
> On Jul 5, 6:13 pm, John Williamson >
> wrote:
>> Bill Graham lied:
>>> Since that is the case, and I am obviously surrounded by idiots, I will
>>> bow out of this group and let you stew in your own stupidity. There is
>>> no sense to my wasting my time with you.
>> Thank you.
>
> What are you thanking him for? Pretending to
> go away? In case you didn't notice, Little Willie
> was back crapping all over the NG less than
> ten minutes after pretending he was leaving.
>
> Business as Willie usual.
>
I thought that this time, he might do as he said. It seems I was wrong.
Hey, ho.....

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

John Williamson

July 6th 11, 06:30 AM

wrote:

> NOw we can get back to figuring out, as you say, how many
> bits can dance on the head of a pin, or arguing about the
> definition of "warmer" <grin>.
>
A`slight raising of the alto/ baritone speech frequency levels, and
maybe a touch of extra bass, with only odd order harmonic distortion?
<Puts on flameproof suit>

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

Don Pearce[_3_]

July 6th 11, 06:39 AM

On Tue, 5 Jul 2011 18:27:31 -0700, "Bill Graham" >
wrote:

>Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> You're the person who first started throwing mud, and more than that,
>> you are the first person who started this whole irrelevant tangent
>> that is not about audio at all.
>
>Neither of these two things are true. I argue a rational position. I don't
>throw mud, or call my opponents names. And, furthermore, I didn't start this
>discussion. I never start such things on forums where it is not proper.
>Someone else started it, or made some comment about it that I found
>offensive, and caused me to jump in and correct them. That is always the
>case, and when I go back and research the posts, that's what I always find.
>

You started it in this post:

>No, you are just unhappy with me because you can't refute my logic, and my
>position disagrees with yours. None of you have the intellectual integrity
>to admit you are wrong, or that your position is illogical.
>

You so-called logic has been refuted by virtually every person that
has replied to you.

>That's all right. I am not surprised. 75 years of living with stupid
>liberals has taught me a lot about the way people think and what I can
>expect from them. It is why I turned down a chance to get into law and took
>up mathematics instead. It was a wise decision. It has kept my blood
>pressure at a very manageable level.
>

You are one of the very few who live among stupid liberals. In my
experience the vast majority of liberals tend to be very sensible. It
sounds like you have made some very poor life choices, your
neighborhood being among them.

>Now, if I can just keep the Robin Hooders at bay, and hold on to what little
>money I have left until my death, I will be home free and will have escaped
>with a reasonably good life experience behind me. A lot of people have sure
>done a lot worse.

You will die as you live - a sad and bitter man.

d

Don Pearce[_3_]

July 6th 11, 06:40 AM

On Tue, 5 Jul 2011 14:40:47 -0700, "Bill Graham" >
wrote:

wrote:
>> On 2011-07-05 (ScottDorsey) said:
>> >>Why can't you stick to the issues and demonstrate to me why my
>> >>logic is bad, instead of just throwing mud? And, if you cannot do
>> >>this, why don't you just shut up?
>> >Because he's tired of your insulting him.
>>
>> INdeed, and even on audio topics MR. Graham hurls insults at
>> people who've tried to inform him, in every thread he's
>> involved himself in since he first appeared on this
>> newsgroup. Many of us, including MR. Dorsey have been the
>> targets of this old ignormant fool's insults, so of course
>> we disrespect him.
>>
>> To BIll: PUt your pistol to your temple and get religion.
>> Also to bill: See the tag line.
>>
>Anyone who goes back and reads these peots, and says that I am the one who
>does all the insulting, and you guys are the ones who stick to the issues
>and offer up reasonable arguments, must be out of their minds. In fact,
>exactly the opposite is trueThe facts are simple. When backed into a corner
>by my logic, you guys resort to spewing insults instead of having the good
>manners to admit defeat.
>
>Since that is the case, and I am obviously surrounded by idiots, I will bow
>out of this group and let you stew in your own stupidity. There is no sense
>to my wasting my time with you.

Don't let the door hit you as you go.

d

Frank

July 6th 11, 07:16 AM

On Wed, 06 Jul 2011 06:30:25 +0100, in 'rec.audio.pro',
in article <Re: Will everyone stop saying tic>,
John Williamson > wrote:

wrote:
>
>> NOw we can get back to figuring out, as you say, how many
>> bits can dance on the head of a pin, or arguing about the
>> definition of "warmer" <grin>.
>>
>A`slight raising of the alto/ baritone speech frequency levels, and
>maybe a touch of extra bass, with only odd order harmonic distortion?
><Puts on flameproof suit>

I promised myself that I wasn't going to post again to this thread,
but I simply can't let this stand.

As *everyone* knows, John, it's the *even-ordered* harmonics that add
warmth.

....

And while I'm at it, why can't people learn the difference between
advice and advise?

Proper usage: I will advise you by offering you advice.

Incorrect example: Can anyone offer me advise on this problem?

Correct example: Can anyone offer me advice on this problem?

Regards,

--
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].

geoff

July 6th 11, 09:18 AM

Bill Graham wrote:
> I deliberately break laws that are repugnant to the Constitution. Not
> only that, but I believe every good citizen should be honor bound to
> do so, so I am just being a good citizen. My mantra is what Spencer
> Tracy said in, "Judgement at Nuremberg"..... It is not the right, but
> the responsibility, for good citizens to break bad laws.
>
> Laws made in defiance of the Constitution are bad laws, and should
> be.....No, MUST be disobeyed. Otherwise, the document will become
> less and less valid, and we will lose the very basis of our free
> country forever.

And I bet you'd be the first to say that those who break those laws that you
*do* approve of should be shot (Figuratively. Hopefully...) !

geoff

geoff

July 6th 11, 09:19 AM

Bill Graham wrote:
> When I was in the Navy, back in '56 - '60, every ship's quarterdeck
> crew wore a colt 45 on their waist. I don't know if they still do
> that today. But most policemen carry a concealed weapon even when
> they are off duty. And its a good thing, too. They have been able to
> prevent many crimes by doing so. I wish the law dictated that
> everyone had to carry one. Talk about making all the muggers leave
> town!

Here not even the police routinely carry guns. And few people get shot - by
the goodies or the badies.

geoff

[email protected]

July 6th 11, 02:05 PM

On 2011-07-06 (DonPearce) said:
>>Now, if I can just keep the Robin Hooders at bay, and hold on to
>>what little money I have left until my death, I will be home free
>>and will have escaped with a reasonably good life experience
>>behind me. A lot of people have sure done a lot worse.
>You will die as you live - a sad and bitter man.

Let's hope he does that soon, and let's hope it hurts like
hell before he goes, and it sucks away every dime he's got
in the process. We wish you pain and misery Graham. YOu
are a criminal coward. IF you were a true libertarian you'd
recognize the rights of intellectual property creators to
choose what they wish to do with the fruits of their
efforts, and choose whomever they wish to enforce those
choices. But, a real libertarian would understand these
things. YOu're a pig ignorant dittohead which is pretty
obvious.
Take your political rantings to newsgroups where they're
interested, we're not.

Richard webb,

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

Scott Dorsey

July 6th 11, 03:03 PM

Frank Stearns > wrote:
>I won't make a public guess as to your politics. But if you're on the left, your
>suggestion to Bill in the above line feeds a stereotype -- the one that those on the
>left (who generally proclaim themselves more feeling and caring) somehow ultimately
>degrade into goose-steppers and want to kill or see killed those who think
>differently...

The thing is, the people on the left DO ultimately degrade into goose-steppers
when they are left to themselves with no outside influences. So do the people
on the right. As soon as there is absolute consensus in any organization, a
move is being made in that direction.

That's why we have this system that is designed to maximize discussion and
encourage compromise. It's really kind of ingenious.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Scott Dorsey

July 6th 11, 03:19 PM

Bill Graham > wrote:
>
>Neither of these two things are true. I argue a rational position. I don't
>throw mud, or call my opponents names. And, furthermore, I didn't start this
>discussion. I never start such things on forums where it is not proper.
>Someone else started it, or made some comment about it that I found
>offensive, and caused me to jump in and correct them. That is always the
>case, and when I go back and research the posts, that's what I always find.

You're arguing the wrong thing in the wrong place. This is an audio
newsgroup.

>No, you are just unhappy with me because you can't refute my logic, and my
>position disagrees with yours. None of you have the intellectual integrity
>to admit you are wrong, or that your position is illogical.

No, the problem is that my position agrees with yours, and your argument
is making this position look bad. You are shooting yourself in the foot
constantly and because I agree with you on this subject you are also shooting
me in the foot as well as I do not appreciate it.

I thought you had gone away? Please go away.
--scott

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

hank alrich

July 6th 11, 05:07 PM

geoff > wrote:

> Bill Graham wrote:
> > I deliberately break laws that are repugnant to the Constitution. Not
> > only that, but I believe every good citizen should be honor bound to
> > do so, so I am just being a good citizen. My mantra is what Spencer
> > Tracy said in, "Judgement at Nuremberg"..... It is not the right, but
> > the responsibility, for good citizens to break bad laws.
> >
> > Laws made in defiance of the Constitution are bad laws, and should
> > be.....No, MUST be disobeyed. Otherwise, the document will become
> > less and less valid, and we will lose the very basis of our free
> > country forever.
>
>
> And I bet you'd be the first to say that those who break those laws that you
> *do* approve of should be shot (Figuratively. Hopefully...) !
>
> geoff

Now he's deciding he either is the Constitution, or he is solely capable
of interpreting its meanings. Hard to tell from his writing.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpqXcV9DYAc
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri