Boy, are you gonna hate this.

[Edward Dolan]

watsonglenn <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> We could also argue endlessly over who these men and women are and are not.>>
>
>
> Not we, but I am sure you could.

Mr. Sherman will attempt to educate idiots like you in how to post, but I know you are uneducable.
So post away you g.d. moron! Only other morons will read you.

Typical watsonglenn response:

So why are you reading me?

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

PS. I am beginning to understand why some on this newsgroup resort to such things as kill files.

 

[Edward Dolan]

watsonglenn <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> Was the post I was replying to on topic? Just curious.>>>

Who cares? Not you.

> I repeat were you posting on topic?

I repeat - are you an idiot?

> It is common Usenet practice to put attributions with quoted text. In fact, most newsreaders,
> email programs, and web forums do that automatically.>>
>
> What do you mean "put attributions with quoted text?"

I mean get a brain you g.d. idiot!

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

 

[Edward Dolan]

watsonglenn <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> What is interesting to me is that you do not know how to post. I always like to give a person the
> courtesy of a reply, but I can't be wasting my time on someone who snips everything out of context
> leaving the newsgroup high and dry. Post like everyone else does on this newsgroup if you want a
> response.>>>
>
> And yet you continue to post to me.

Don't flatter yourself. I am posting to the entire newsgroup. If you want to read me that is your
business. I could care less.

> Below is my complete post. The only one doing any snipping here is you. Please be rational or be
> gone!>>>
>
> Are you serious?

Are you not serious?

> You, sir, are an interloper! If you are going to intrude on a subject thread, at least have the
> grace to read the entire thread so you can get running with it and become familiar with the
> subject being discussed.>>>
>
> This is surreal.

This is not surreal. It is everyday reality. Either follow a thread from its beginnings or get lost.

Also, sign off your stupid posts with some kind of name, otherwise known as a signature. Unless you
want all of us to think you are a jerk. Come to think of it, maybe you could just sign off that way:
the jerk! We would all know who you are then.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

 

[watsonglenn]

This is not surreal. It is everyday reality. Either follow a thread from its beginnings or get lost.>>

Are you under the impression that you have some sort of authority over the way I post?

Also, sign off your stupid posts with some kind of name, otherwise known as a signature. Unless you want all of us to think you are a jerk. Come to think of it, maybe you could just sign off that way: the jerk! We would all know who you are then.>>

Good grief. What a sad little man you must be.

 

[Edward Dolan]

watsonglenn <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

Edward Dolan wrote:

> This is not surreal. It is everyday reality. Either follow a thread from its beginnings or
> get lost.>>
>
> Are you under the impression that you have some sort of authority over the way I post?
>
> Also, sign off your stupid posts with some kind of name, otherwise known as a signature. Unless
> you want all of us to think you are a jerk. Come to think of it, maybe you could just sign off
> that way: the jerk! We would all know who you are then.>>
>
> Good grief. What a sad little man you must be.

Nope, this jerk is never going to post properly. He will not play the game of life according to the
rules. He is most likely of a criminal nature. Too bad. He could have enjoyed being admitted to the
society of civilized humans and instead will now be treated like the scofflaw that he is, i.e., with
contempt and disdain.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

 

[watsonglenn]

Nope, this jerk is never going to post properly. He will not play the game of life according to the rules. He is most likely of a criminal nature. .>>>

My God! You have completely gone round the bend, and not in a good way. Let me get this straight. You don't like the way I post so I must be a criminal?

Too bad. He could have enjoyed being admitted to the
society of civilized humans and instead will now be treated like the scofflaw that he is, i.e., with contempt and disdain.>>>

Unbelievable! I'm flagergasted. In real life I rarely get to encounter such behavior. You are all but slobering at the mouth over nothing. Get help. And don't bother responding. I won't be replying to you any longer.

 

[Edward Dolan]

watsonglenn <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> Nope, this jerk is never going to post properly. He will not play the game of life according to
> the rules. He is most likely of a criminal nature. .>>>
>
> My God! You have completely gone round the bend, and not in a good way. Let me get this straight.
> You don't like the way I post so I must be a criminal?
>
> Too bad. He could have enjoyed being admitted to the society of civilized humans and instead will
> now be treated like the scofflaw that he is, i.e., with contempt and disdain.>>>
>
> Unbelievable! I'm flagergasted. In real life I rarely get to encounter such behavior. You are all
> but slobering at the mouth over nothing. Get help. And don't bother responding. I won't be
> replying to you any longer.

I am not replying to you but to the newsgroup. We don't not want idiots like you here who do not
observe the most elementary decencies of posting. You are posting improperly (not what you say -
although I have some issues with you there too - but the form in which you say it). You are not
observing netiquette. Mr. Sherman has already explained to you how to post. But I knew from your
first message what kind of a scofflaw you were. The rest of the group should know about you so they
do not waste their time on you. That is why I am here, to warn them about idiots like you. By the
way, I know that you know how to post, but you refuse to post properly because like I said, you most
likely have a criminal nature.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

 

[david.poole]

I'm British so the idea of carrying a weapon of any sort is rather alien.

I've both read and seen "Bowling for Columbine" and, bear in mind I am not American, my take on the America and guns thing is that
a) Something that is part of the American constitution "the right to bare arms" has become an greater source of oppression than it is a freedom.
b) American media creates an atmosphere of fear and paranoia in a heavily armed population. Not a good combination.

One of the greatest American presidents said "You have nothing to fear but fear itself", which contrasts greatly from the attitude today.

Try coming through US Customs as a foreigner and the difference between America now and America 10 years ago is astounding.

Is it the first amendment that says something about "freedom of association"? You try walking through customs with an Asian man in traditional muslim dress! I never want to see a rubber glove again as long as I live!

Freedom of speech doesn't mean that Freedom to agree with George Dubyaa and disagreeing with him doesn't mean that I dislike Americans.

I think it is a great shame that in a nation of such great achievements and with a mostly friendly, optimistic and big hearted people you have felt a need to ask a question of this sort.

If you need a weapon on a bike ride, change your route so you don't need one. In emergencies a swift wack with a 20" pump is a remarkable deterrent.

 

[veganheart]

i am a true pacifist. Guns are made for one purpose and I abhor that purpose : to kill.

Have we not evolved to the point where we can settle our disputes without the use of violence?

I refuse to compromise my integrity based on the actions of others. There was a dude who once said, If a man strikes your cheek turn to him the other also.

'nuff said

 

[watsonglenn]

Try coming through US Customs as a foreigner and the difference between America now and America 10 years ago is astounding.>>

Gee, I wonder why that it.

 

[Curtis L . Russ]

On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 20:50:35 GMT, david.poole
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I've both read and seen "Bowling for Columbine" and, bear in mind I am not American, my take on the
>America and guns thing is that
>a) Something that is part of the American constitution "the right to bare arms" has become an
> greater source of oppression than it is a freedom.
>b) American media creates an atmosphere of fear and paranoia in a heavily armed population. Not a
> good combination.

Even liberal makers of documentaries have a problem with the created history of "Bowling for
Columbine". It is full of juxtapositions that really occurred months apart, questions asked followed
with answers to completely different questions or vaguely similar questions, but from different
times and contexts. A deliberate hatchet job.

There is a reality there, but it is almost completely obscured by an agenda.

Curtis L. Russell Odenton, MD (USA) Just someone on two wheels...

 

[Howard]

david.poole <[email protected]> wrote in news:v0yUb.131940
[email protected]:

> I'm British so the idea of carrying a weapon of any sort is rather alien. ... one. In emergencies
> a swift wack with a 20" pump is a remarkable deterrent.
>

Y'know, for just a second I thought you wrote "20 gauge pump." Now *That* would be awkward. Quite
the deterrent though...

(bitshift etc)

 

[Tom Sherman]

watsonglenn wrote:
> Try coming through US Customs as a foreigner and the difference between America now and America 10
> years ago is astounding.>>
>
> Gee, I wonder why that it.

I believe that it is due to the lack of proper attributions by some Usenet posters.

Tom Sherman - Quad Cities

 

[Tom Sherman]

david.poole wrote:

> I'm British so the idea of carrying a weapon of any sort is rather alien.
>
> I've both read and seen "Bowling for Columbine" and, bear in mind I am not American, my take on
> the America and guns thing is that
> a) Something that is part of the American constitution "the right to bare arms" has become an
> greater source of oppression than it is a freedom....

You are right - short-sleeve shirts and tank tops are the bane of the nation.

Tom Sherman - Quad Cities

 

[trujillomig]

Originally posted by Freewheeling
I'm curious enough about attitudes on this issue that I'm going to risk
being flamed. I have recently come to regard the attitude of "Armed
Liberal" on the issue of self defense as worth considering. If you wish to
read his thoughts go here:

http://windsofchange.net/archives/004180.html

It is a relatively nuanced argument that, in my view, has considerable merit. I realize that most
people here considere themselves "pacifists" which is a position quite different from that of
"passivists," but there is really a rather thoughtful consideration of this issue in some pro-
firearm forums, like Highroads. I suspect there are at least a few people sympathetic to the
perspective of being armed while riding (especially long distance and alone) so would like the
thoughts of those in that category. If you have some thoughts on the pacifist position I'd like to
hear those too. I'm basically concerned about the unique issues of bearing arms as it relates to
cycling, and whether anyone has thought about this. I'm attempting to think this through, but having
been convinced by Armed Liberal's basic logic I'm not sure I can simply forego bearing arms on a
bike without further consideration. Mutual respect is in order, and I know that 90% of the people
here will object. There are certainly practical considerations to take into account, such as the
additional weight and safety in event of a fall, etc.

But the bottom line for me is that if bearing arms is a value you believe in then some accomodation
must be found, at least for long non-group riding where protection in number (of witnesses to an
assault) is simply not in the cards.

God help me for raising the issue. Lets try to not crosspost, OK?

--
--Scott

I ride around with my 380 made of titaniun in my handlebars

 

[watsonglenn]

I believe that it is due to the lack of proper attributions by some Usenet posters.>>

That must be it. Or it could be the concern for minutia like posting styles and planes flying into buildings.

 

[Freewheeling]

David:

As Curtis says, the Moore "documentary" is a travesty. Check out Spinsanity to read the whole
sorry story. Simply put, Michael Moore is a liar. Not only that, but he never really addresses the
issue of violence in the US in a way that's consonant with any of the *real* (non-junk) research
on the topic.

And as I've posted elsewhere, not only is "fear of the other" relatively unrelated to crime, but
it's lower in the US than in most of Europe, including the UK.

And, of course, the real bottom line is that property crimes, burglaries, home invasions, and the
like are significantly higher in the UK than in the US. It's true there are more homicides in the
US, but the gap is narrowing and it's not nearly as wide as what Moore depicts if you include all
homicides and not just gun homicides.

So, by all means, draw conclusions about the US from reputable data and research... but you'll get a
pretty distorted picture by assuming Michael Moore is a decent source for any of that.

--
--Scott
"david.poole" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I'm British so the idea of carrying a weapon of any sort is
> rather alien.
>
> I've both read and seen "Bowling for Columbine" and, bear in mind I am
> not American, my take on the America and guns thing is that
> a) Something that is part of the American constitution "the right to
> bare arms" has become an greater source of oppression than it is
> a freedom.
> b) American media creates an atmosphere of fear and paranoia in a
> heavily armed population. Not a good combination.
>
> One of the greatest American presidents said "You have nothing to fear
> but fear itself", which contrasts greatly from the attitude today.
>
> Try coming through US Customs as a foreigner and the difference between
> America now and America 10 years ago is astounding.
>
> Is it the first amendment that says something about "freedom of
> association"? You try walking through customs with an Asian man in
> traditional muslim dress! I never want to see a rubber glove again as
> long as I live!
>
> Freedom of speech doesn't mean that Freedom to agree with George Dubyaa
> and disagreeing with him doesn't mean that I dislike Americans.
>
> I think it is a great shame that in a nation of such great achievements
> and with a mostly friendly, optimistic and big hearted people you have
> felt a need to ask a question of this sort.
>
> If you need a weapon on a bike ride, change your route so you don't need
> one. In emergencies a swift wack with a 20" pump is a remarkable
> deterrent.
>
>
>
> --

 

[Freewheeling]

"Try coming through US Customs as a foreigner and the difference between America now and America 10
years ago is astounding."

You know people have told me that 9-11 has slipped from the minds of a lot of people, but until I
read that statement of yours I just couldn't get my head around it. What I'm not clear about is how
you expect to be taken seriously in your critique of the US, when the single bloodiest day in US
history since Antietam just wafts out of you mind like that? Stunning.

--
--Scott
"david.poole" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I'm British so the idea of carrying a weapon of any sort is
> rather alien.
>
> I've both read and seen "Bowling for Columbine" and, bear in mind I am
> not American, my take on the America and guns thing is that
> a) Something that is part of the American constitution "the right to
> bare arms" has become an greater source of oppression than it is
> a freedom.
> b) American media creates an atmosphere of fear and paranoia in a
> heavily armed population. Not a good combination.
>
> One of the greatest American presidents said "You have nothing to fear
> but fear itself", which contrasts greatly from the attitude today.
>
> Try coming through US Customs as a foreigner and the difference between
> America now and America 10 years ago is astounding.
>
> Is it the first amendment that says something about "freedom of
> association"? You try walking through customs with an Asian man in
> traditional muslim dress! I never want to see a rubber glove again as
> long as I live!
>
> Freedom of speech doesn't mean that Freedom to agree with George Dubyaa
> and disagreeing with him doesn't mean that I dislike Americans.
>
> I think it is a great shame that in a nation of such great achievements
> and with a mostly friendly, optimistic and big hearted people you have
> felt a need to ask a question of this sort.
>
> If you need a weapon on a bike ride, change your route so you don't need
> one. In emergencies a swift wack with a 20" pump is a remarkable
> deterrent.
>
>
>
> --

 

[Freewheeling]

Well, just in case anyone is actually interested in the topic, I posted the same question to the gun
group and got some useful responses. Some people carry a KelTec .32 cal. A number of people said
that they just carry whatever they have in a ***** pack, without worrying too much about weight and
the like. The ***** pack protects from sweat/corrosion, but it's kind of a fashion risk. (Like
anyone cares about that, right?) For lightweight carry KelTec is the cheap solution, and it's
probably fairly corrosion resistant too, since it's mostly made of synthetic material. The upscale
solution is the Kahr, especially the PM9 and PM40. They're entirely made of polycarbonate and
stainless steel, and are very compact and light for centerfire weapons.

--
--Scott
"Freewheeling" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I'm curious enough about attitudes on this issue that I'm going to risk
> being flamed. I have recently come to regard the attitude of "Armed
> Liberal" on the issue of self defense as worth considering. If you wish
to
> read his thoughts go here:
>
> http://windsofchange.net/archives/004180.html
>
> It is a relatively nuanced argument that, in my view, has considerable
> merit. I realize that most people here considere themselves "pacifists"
> which is a position quite different from that of "passivists," but there
is
> really a rather thoughtful consideration of this issue in some pro-firearm
> forums, like Highroads. I suspect there are at least a few people
> sympathetic to the perspective of being armed while riding (especially
long
> distance and alone) so would like the thoughts of those in that category.
> If you have some thoughts on the pacifist position I'd like to hear those
> too. I'm basically concerned about the unique issues of bearing arms as
it
> relates to cycling, and whether anyone has thought about this. I'm
> attempting to think this through, but having been convinced by Armed
> Liberal's basic logic I'm not sure I can simply forego bearing arms on a
> bike without further consideration. Mutual respect is in order, and I
know
> that 90% of the people here will object. There are certainly practical
> considerations to take into account, such as the additional weight and
> safety in event of a fall, etc.
>
> But the bottom line for me is that if bearing arms is a value you believe
in
> then some accomodation must be found, at least for long non-group riding
> where protection in number (of witnesses to an assault) is simply not in
the
> cards.
>
> God help me for raising the issue. Lets try to not crosspost, OK?
>
> --
> --Scott

 

[Freewheeling]

"Have we not evolved to the point where we can settle our disputes without the use of violence?"

And yet you can maintain such a patently immoral attitude because others have paid, and are willing
to pay, the price for you. How does your family reflect on the fact that you wouldn't lift a finger
to protect them from a predatory human? Or your friends? How do you feel about police who raise the
cost of predation on criminals so that you can enjoy a social milleau that doesn't duplicate the
Hundred Years War? Is it OK that they risk their lives to protect you? Your "uncompromising"
position is really just a conceit, enjoying a false superiority at someone else's expense. (Although
it's possible to be a C.O. and serve in other capacities while your country's military protects your
freedoms, I have a hunch you'd see that as a "compromise.")

Read Reinhold Neibuhr, if you think pacificsm is such a one-way ticket to sainthood.

--
--Scott
"veganheart" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> i am a true pacifist. Guns are made for one purpose and I abhor that
purpose : to kill.
>
> Have we not evolved to the point where we can settle our disputes
> without the use of violence?
>
> I refuse to compromise my integrity based on the actions of others.
> There was a dude who once said, If a man strikes your cheek turn to him
> the other also.
>
> 'nuff said
>
>
>
> --