[Gareth Magennis]

"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]

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]

On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 17:14:25 -0400, in 'rec.audio.pro',
in article 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]

"Frank" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 17:14:25 -0400, in 'rec.audio.pro',
in article 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]

On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 12:38:54 -0700, in 'rec.audio.pro',
in article 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 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]

On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 00:23:53 +0100, in 'rec.audio.pro',
in article 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 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]]

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]

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]

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_]]

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_]]

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]

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_]]

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]

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]

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_]]

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]

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_]]

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]

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_]]

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]

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_]]

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]

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_]]

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]

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]

"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]

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]

"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]

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]

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_]]

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

"Ed Anson" wrote in message
m...
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]

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_]]

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]

"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_]]

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]

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]

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]

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_]]

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_]]

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