 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeArticlesDiving DestinationsLearning Scuba DivingMarine LifeMiscellaneousDiscussion GroupsGeneralScuba EquipmentScuba LocationsAustralian ScubaUK ScubaDirectoryScuba Clubs |
Scuba Forum / General / September 2006Brockville 8/06
I just did 2 back-to-back weekends in the Brockville, Ontario area. The diving was good and the topside wasn't bad either. Despite finding virtually all of the dive boats "full" after numerous phone calls, I drove up on Friday 8/11 and checked in at the Best Western in Brockville. I have no complaints about the motel. On Saturday morning I went to the diveshops in town, and found that Abucs had a spot on one of their large River Queen boats going to the Muscallonge and the Gaskin. The boat had been chartered by a shop which failed to fill it, so they sold 3 spots to walk ons. Upon arriving at the dock, I immediately started sizing up the other 2 buddyless divers for a potential buddy. Both seemed ok, but one from Montreal bore a remarkable resemblance to a certain SoFL dive buddy, and had older good quality equipment that was not a CF. I might also mention that he was quite handsome - yes, it was a Canadian counterpart - Le Stroque Belle. LSB and I immediately decided to buddy up, and were joined by the other lone diver. The instructor with the diveshop group was nervous about us for some reason, and actually requasted that we be put on the bow of the boat, which was away from his customers. The bow is very roomy, with cover and benches for about 6 divers, so we were very comfortable, and got most of the attention from the lovely Dive Boat Monkette. First dive was the Muscallonge - about 90-100 ft to the bottom. she was a large tugboat, and has a boiler which is as big as some of the ones on the tankers off of NC. It sank on august 15, 1936 due to a fire which started in the boiler room. The water temp was about 73-74 degrees F, and the vis was about 40 ft. We were tied in at the stern, so we did a swim around and then spent the rest of our time poking around the boiler and engine. We all still had plenty of gas left when we hit the no=stop limit, so we stayed an extra few minutes and did an appropriate ascent. A lot of people say this dive is boring because the wooden hull is not intact, but I am fascinated by the size of the power plant on such a small vessel. This had to be a kick-a.s tug in its day. The next dive was the Gaskin. It was a 3 masted barque that was converted into a salvage barge when steam power took over. Listening to the story of how it sank is like listening to a Red Green episode. It sank 3 times in 1889 while trying to salvage the rairoad ferry Armstrong. Its trouble started when it was filling a lift device with steam - the device broke from from the Armstrong and went straight up, puncturing the hull of the Gaskin. The wreck is intact in about 60 ft, and the temperature and vis were about the same as on the Muscallonge. We swam the length of the wreck, and poked around the belowdeck area for awhile. It was another enjoyable dive, and it was all too soon that we had to get back on the boat and head for the dock. The boat crew did a good job, and I would dive with them again (as I did the following week). After going back to the motel and showering, i went to the Brockville Ribfest and stuffed myswlf with some real American barbecue. I got up early on sunday morning and drove back to PA. The very next weekend, I was joined by cindy for the trip. We stayed at the Comfort Inn in Gananoque. She did not dive, so I once again had to find buddies. I wa not able to find any openings on the boats on the telephone, but once again I walked into Abucs and they found spots for me for Saturday afternoon and sunday morning. we spent Saturday morning walking around in Gananoque. There was a Model A rally or something going on, and there were a bunch of antique cars displayed in the park. We striolled around looking at the shops, and in one window we saw a sign that said "Never Mind the Dog, Beware of Owner, but instead of the usual gun there was a picture of a golf club. for Saturday's afternoon dives, we departed from rockport to the Bellydumper and the Kinghorn. The Bellydumper is a bellydumping barge that sits on the bottom of the riverbank, at about 120 ft to the very bottom. The vis was maybe 30 ft, and the water was a nice 74-75. The mooring is not attached to the wreck; you just follow the bank down to it. There are several lines and cables that go down the bank and lead you to the wreck. The wreck is small, and I didn't find it to be too interesting. The nest dive was the Kinghorn. this is another barque that was converted into a barge. It is right off the Andress boat works in rockport in about 90 ft of water. It is almost fully intact, and there is quite a pile of artifacts on it. My buddy's plan was to bend his computer on this dive and use a fresh one the next morning. The dive went as planned. This is an excellent dive and intersting wreck. On sunday, we left from Brockville for the Daryaw and Parsons. The Daryaw is in about 90 ft and turtled, and the rudder and screws are a spectacular sight from the mooring line. The current ws pretty ripping near the bow, so we ducked underneath to cross to the other side of the wreck. We pokes around the stern a bit before starting our ascent. This is another great dive, with penetration opportunities. The current scares alot of people away from this wreck. The last dive was the Lily Parsons on Sparrow island. It sits on the bank, and there is a ripping current on this wreck. We dropped a little up=river from the wreck and drifted into it. We swam around it, poking into crevices and swimming to the ends of the masts. The end of this dive is really cool - you just let go and fly along the wall for about 2 minutes, and catch a line at the end of the island and ascend on it. Once on the top, you swim around the end of the island to the boat dock and get back on the boat. This is peak diving season up there. I was lucky to find rides because everyone is full. I tried last moth and earlier this month to put together a trip with my old buddy George M., but I could not book any spots at all. I am going to try to book an august trip for next year, but this time I will plan it in the spring. Tim has tasty toroids, but his coffee sucks. The dollar is not as strong as it once was, and the increased demand for diving up there has driven the prices up a bit, so it is not the bargain it once was, but it is still worth the trip. It is about a 6-7 hour drive from philly. >I just did 2 back-to-back weekends in the Brockville, Ontario area. The > diving was good and the topside wasn't bad either. [quoted text clipped - 104 lines] > the prices up a bit, so it is not the bargain it once was, but it is > still worth the trip. It is about a 6-7 hour drive from philly. Pretty groovy.  SignaturePopeye "I'm no longer concerned about seeing civilization arrest its decline into barbarism, I'm simply enjoying the spectacle." -Vox Day www.finalprotectivefire.com The bow is very roomy, with > cover and benches for about 6 divers, so we were very comfortable, and > got most of the attention from the lovely Dive Boat Monkette. I love dive boat monkettes. > we spent Saturday morning walking around in Gananoque. There was a Model > A rally or something going on, and there were a bunch of antique cars > displayed in the park. We striolled around looking at the shops, and in > one window we saw a sign that said "Never Mind the Dog, Beware of Owner, > but instead of the usual gun there was a picture of a golf club. 8^) > My buddy's plan was to bend his > computer on this dive and use a fresh one the next morning. The dive > went as planned. This is an excellent dive and intersting wreck. Interesting plan. The computer of one of the air divers on the Tortugas trip got set for Nitrox somehow and he didn't know it. He did enough dives based on 78% N2, 50% O2 to violate it's O2 limit after the next to last dive of the second day. His N2 graph was pretty much the same as his buddy's, so we pulled his batteries and suggested he stick with his buddy's profile for the last dive of the day. By the next day, he was close enough to go it on his own. Not a great practice, but a workable one. Cool report. Being geographically challenged, I'll look every thing up in a bit. It looks like there's an unexpected advantage to being landlocked. It leads to dive travel that those closer to an ocean are less likely to do. When you next see George, give him our regards and be sure to tell him that he's still welcome in this part of S. Florida. Lee we saw a sign that said "Never Mind the Dog, Beware of Owner, > > but instead of the usual gun there was a picture of a golf club. > > 8^) And here you guys thought I was strange carrying an open wedge. I'm happy to see at least one of you has realized how good the diving is up here in the frozen north. A lot of those wrecks are natural, not artificial reefs, so they're often pretty interesting, and not too deep for non-techy divers to enjoy. For those who can't cross the border I understand it's pretty good out of Alexandra Bay in NY as well. We don't have the colourful fish that one sees down south and instead of Barracuda we have really big toothy Pike. If you squint the bass might pass for small groupers. I've even seen an anemone glued to a wreck. Water temps are nice, not cold like Tobermory, and there's actually quite a few shore dives possible. Thanks for the report Al. I enjoyed it. That area's only 4 or 5 hours away for me but I don't get there as often as I'd like. Maybe once our young friend Rod (HotRod) gets certed and starts visiting the inlaws (as a diver) in Brockville he'll come up with the inside track for boat rides. We need to be nice to him. 8) JF > And here you guys thought I was strange carrying an open wedge. Not at all. We thought you were carrying the weapon you chose and wondered why you kept harping on us because we choose to carry one we want too. Lee >> And here you guys thought I was strange carrying an open wedge. > > Not at all. We thought you were carrying the weapon you chose and > wondered why you kept harping on us because we choose to carry one we want > too. <twitter> SignaturePopeye "I'm no longer concerned about seeing civilization arrest its decline into barbarism, I'm simply enjoying the spectacle." -Vox Day www.finalprotectivefire.com > > And here you guys thought I was strange carrying an open wedge. > > Not at all. We thought you were carrying the weapon you chose and wondered > why you kept harping on us because we choose to carry one we want too. Nah. As you know, I choose not to carry a weapon, and just improvise as expedient. Just out of curiosity, when have I ever harped on you or the others I know here about you carrying? As far as I know I've only harped on fools and the emotionally unstable having guns. In fairness, I have responded to a few cheap shots about cowardice with some of my own about the motivation to carry - tit for tat. But let's not use Al's joke as an excuse to ruin a legitimate dive thread with more gun silliness. All it leads to is Scott going postal, Popeye claiming another delusional ass-whippin' and Bobby and the Metoos singing harmony. It's fun, but so is dive talk. JF >> > And here you guys thought I was strange carrying an open wedge. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Nah. As you know, I choose not to carry a weapon, and just improvise as > expedient. Which is the first lie. > Just out of curiosity, when have I ever harped on you or the others I > know here about you carrying? Flaunt that shiny bangtoy! and scores of other trash remarks. > As far as I know I've only harped on > fools and the emotionally unstable having guns. Which is pretty much any American that has a gun. >In fairness, I have > responded to a few cheap shots about cowardice with some of my own > about the motivation to carry - tit for tat. Cccccheck. > But let's not use Al's joke as an excuse to ruin a legitimate dive > thread with more gun silliness. All it leads to is Scott going postal, > Popeye claiming another delusional ass-whippin' Sorry, Skippy, I ran you out of a thread just this week. It's all too easy now. The list is just too long anymore. >and Bobby and the > Metoos singing harmony. It's fun, but so is dive talk. SignaturePopeye "I'm no longer concerned about seeing civilization arrest its decline into barbarism, I'm simply enjoying the spectacle." -Vox Day www.finalprotectivefire.com > > Nah. As you know, I choose not to carry a weapon, and just improvise as > > expedient. > > Which is the first lie. It amazes that there are people who can't see through your bs. I guess that's a part of your charm, your ability to make up nonsense on the fly and say it with such conviction. > > Just out of curiosity, when have I ever harped on you or the others I > > know here about you carrying? > > Flaunt that shiny bangtoy! and scores of other trash remarks. Scores? In any case, if you're flaunting it you aren't really observing the responsible standard you preach, are you? If the shoe fits .... bang bang. > > As far as I know I've only harped on > > fools and the emotionally unstable having guns. > > Which is pretty much any American that has a gun. I thought you had more respect for law abiding gun owners. That hardly sounds respectful. I've stated on numerous occasions that I don't think everyone here who favours guns is an idiot. > > But let's not use Al's joke as an excuse to ruin a legitimate dive > > thread with more gun silliness. All it leads to is Scott going postal, > > Popeye claiming another delusional ass-whippin' > > Sorry, Skippy, I ran you out of a thread just this week. That's a pretty good example of what I mean. Maybe you don't know what delusional means? JF Nothing, really. SignaturePopeye "I'm no longer concerned about seeing civilization arrest its decline into barbarism, I'm simply enjoying the spectacle." -Vox Day www.finalprotectivefire.com <Snip> no diving so far in these two posts... does this mean instead of sex, guns and scuba you're just going for the sex and guns? >> > And here you guys thought I was strange carrying an open wedge. >> Not at all. We thought you were carrying the weapon you chose and >> wondered >> why you kept harping on us because we choose to carry one we want too. > Nah. As you know, I choose not to carry a weapon, and just improvise as > expedient. The orignal post addressed it as a weapon. You used it as a weapon. It's too late to claim it isn't one unless, of course, you're willing let us (meaning all Americans) do the same. > Just out of curiosity, when have I ever harped on you or the others I > know here about you carrying? As far as I know I've only harped on > fools and the emotionally unstable having guns. In fairness, I have > responded to a few cheap shots about cowardice with some of my own > about the motivation to carry - tit for tat. It's not a matter of harping on us. That would be far better, and less inflamatory than what you have done. You attacked the concept of our Second Amendment. That's the one thing, related to this topic, that you can't expect to get away with. With fight a constant battle against those that are more than willing to use any tactic at all, honest or otherwise, to do the same. We spend a great deal of time resisting the efforts of people like the Brady Bunch, who pile one lie on top of another in order to promote their agenda at the expense of our constitutional rights. Despite all the evidence to the contrary, despite all the court rulings, and all the positive reports on the results of laws allowing law abiding citizens the means to protect themselves, their families and their property, they keep coming back for more. We have more than enough trouble with our own people without the support of people, like yourself, that do not live here, are not subject to the same conditions and, frankly, have no business sticking their noses into our constitutional issues. You want to suggest I should not be armed because you think I'm a nutbar, because I'm not as good a shot as I once was, because I'm getting old, or for any other real or made up reason you can think of, go ahead . . . as long as it's about me and not about the right itself. We've always had fun with personal digs, be they about politics, jobs, guns or diving. Any attack on our constitutional rights, however, are not a joke. They're very, very serious . . . as you almost certainly have known for a while now. > But let's not use Al's joke as an excuse to ruin a legitimate dive > thread with more gun silliness. All it leads to is Scott going postal, > Popeye claiming another delusional ass-whippin' and Bobby and the > Metoos singing harmony. It's fun, but so is dive talk. Good idea. Lee > >> > And here you guys thought I was strange carrying an open wedge. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > too late to claim it isn't one unless, of course, you're willing let us > (meaning all Americans) do the same. That's pretty feeble. So are fists potential weapons, but only a raving egomaniac would go around only referring to his hands as weapons. > > Just out of curiosity, when have I ever harped on you or the others I > > know here about you carrying? As far as I know I've only harped on [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > inflamatory than what you have done. You attacked the concept of our Second > Amendment. Actually I questioned the self-serving interpretation of the Second, not the Amendment itself. >That's the one thing, related to this topic, that you can't > expect to get away with. With fight a constant battle against those that [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > subject to the same conditions and, frankly, have no business sticking their > noses into our constitutional issues. Hezbollah probably feels that way about the thread on their little disagreement too, huh? Or the Canadian seal hunters who feel they have a constitutional and legal right to hunt seals, but that doesn't stop a lot of foreigners from offering opinions on it. You know what they say about opinions anyway. > > But let's not use Al's joke as an excuse to ruin a legitimate dive > > thread with more gun silliness. All it leads to is Scott going postal, > > Popeye claiming another delusional ass-whippin' and Bobby and the > > Metoos singing harmony. It's fun, but so is dive talk. > > Good idea. JF >> The orignal post addressed it as a weapon. You used it as a weapon. >> It's >> too late to claim it isn't one unless, of course, you're willing let us >> (meaning all Americans) do the same. > That's pretty feeble. It was your choice. > So are fists potential weapons . . . Yes. > Only a raving egomaniac would go around only referring to his hands as > weapons. It would be foolish in a confrontation in a state that allows its citizens to carry guns. Remember, the standard for shooting is legitimate fear of death or permanent injury. Shake your fist at me and I'd have a hard time claiming fear at that level. Tell me their weapons and then shake them at me and the outcome might be very different. One of the people who once confronted me, spent considerable time bragging about his martial arts skills. I chose not to shoot him, but most likely would have had little problem proving legitimate fear given his past comments. > Actually I questioned the self-serving interpretation of the Second, > not the Amendment itself. Bullshit. > Hezbollah probably feels that way about the thread on their little > disagreement too, huh? Not even close. > Or the Canadian seal hunters who feel they have a constitutional and legal > right to hunt seals, but that doesn't stop a > lot of foreigners from offering opinions on it. Do they have a constitutional right to club seals to death? Please refer me to the portion of your constitution that says the right to kill animals shall not be infringed. Lee > Do they have a constitutional right to club seals to death? Please refer me > to the portion of your constitution that says the right to kill animals > shall not be infringed. They don't have a "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" clause? Damn, it must suck to be a Canadian, eh? >> Do they have a constitutional right to club seals to death? Please refer me >> to the portion of your constitution that says the right to kill animals >> shall not be infringed. > >They don't have a "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" clause? >Damn, it must suck to be a Canadian, eh? I'd love to know where it says in your constitution about protecting animal rights. Ya mean, ya don't protect them from clubbing? What about abattoirs? Does it at least define "animals?" Does it include insects, birds, etc? Vertebrates vs invertebrates? No, well, must be time to update that thing... --- Mike from Ottawa > No, well, must be time to update that thing... It works perfectly, Among other things, it keeps idiots and bigots like you completely in the dark. >>> Do they have a constitutional right to club seals to death? Please >>> refer me [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>They don't have a "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" clause? >>Damn, it must suck to be a Canadian, eh? > I'd love to know where it says in your constitution about protecting > animal rights. It doesn't, but we weren't the ones that likened discussions about seals clubbed to death to a right which shall not be infringed. Lee > I'd love to know where it says in your constitution about protecting > animal rights. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > etc? Vertebrates vs invertebrates? No, well, must be time to update > that thing... I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to say here... If you look back at that topic, you'll find that I don't have a problem with responsible harvesting of animals as long as it is sustainable... Given a choice between being at the top of the food chain or at the bottom, I choose the top -- you eat better... > > I'd love to know where it says in your constitution about protecting > > animal rights. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Given a choice between being at the top of the food chain or at the > bottom, I choose the top -- you eat better... Not exactly. Canada does not kill seals for the food: "Canada's annual seal hunt is the largest slaughter of marine mammals on the planet. This year the Canadian government allowed fishermen to club and shoot more than 330,000 baby seals in the North Atlantic, just to earn a few extra bucks by selling seal skins. Last year, 98.5% of the seals killed were two months of age or younger-and veterinary reports indicate that many seals have been skinned while still conscious and able to feel pain. " hummmm > Not exactly. Canada does not kill seals for the food: So they're wasteful... Shame on them... If you're going to kill it for the pelt, you really should also harvest the flesh for food if at all possible... That's not to say that there aren't certain animals that I kill and neither harvest the pelt nor harvest for food, but that's just because I consider them pests -- armadillos, grackles, 'possums, rats, mice, etc... Oh yeah, and sometimes democrats... <evil-grin> > "Canada's annual seal hunt is the largest slaughter of marine mammals > on the planet. This year the Canadian government allowed fishermen to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > reports indicate that many seals have been skinned while still > conscious and able to feel pain. " So, you are not arguing whether the numbers are a sustainable harvesting of the resource? <snip> >> Given a choice between being at the top of the food chain or at the >> bottom, I choose the top -- you eat better... [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >hummmm You've obviously never had seal flipper pie. Here ya go: http://www.joycesfinecooking.com/Ethnic/newfoundland_flipper_pie.htm Mmmmm. --- Mike from Ottawa > <snip> > >> Given a choice between being at the top of the food chain or at the [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > --- > Mike from Ottawa Bonsoir Mike from Otawa, Il arrive que je suis végétarienne LOL >> <snip> >> >> Given a choice between being at the top of the food chain or at the [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > >Il arrive que je suis végétarienne LOL Ah, bien, then no flippers for you! --- Mike from Ottawa > >> <snip> > >> >> Given a choice between being at the top of the food chain or at the [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > --- > Mike from Ottawa Ah bien? Ce n'est pas bien. :- ( tu ne dois pas manger les phoques parce que tu sais que le chasse est cruelle. Il est a massacre. > Ah bien? Ce n'est pas bien. :- ( tu ne dois pas manger les phoques > parce que tu sais que le chasse est cruelle. Il est a massacre. Ce n'est pas un massacre. C'est un travail. JF > > Ah bien? Ce n'est pas bien. :- ( tu ne dois pas manger les phoques > > parce que tu sais que le chasse est cruelle. Il est a massacre. > > Ce n'est pas un massacre. C'est un travail. > > JF oh yeah, je sais, un travail légal mais non moral.. Clairement tu as besoin de lire un peu plus: "How Are the Seals Killed? The Canadian Marine Mammal Regulations, which govern the hunt, stipulate sealers may kill seals with wooden clubs, hakapiks (large ice-pick-like clubs) and guns. In the Gulf of St. Lawrence, clubs and hakapiks are the killing implement of choice, and in the Front, guns are more widely used. It is important to note that each killing method is demonstrably cruel. Because sealers shoot at seals from moving boats, the pups are often only wounded. The main sealskin processing plant in Canada deducts $2 from the price they pay for the skins for each bullet hole they find-therefore sealers are loath to shoot seals more than once. As a result, wounded seals are often left to suffer in agony-many slip beneath the surface of the water where they die slowly and are never recovered. Is the Seal Hunt Cruel? Yes. In 2001, a report by an independent team of veterinarians who studied the hunt concluded that governmental regulations regarding humane killing were neither being respected nor enforced, and that the seal hunt failed to comply with Canada's basic animal welfare standards. Shockingly, the veterinarians found that in 42% of the cases they studied, the seals had likely been skinned alive while conscious. Parliamentarians, journalists, and scientists who observe Canada's commercial seal hunt each year continue to report unacceptable levels of cruelty, including sealers dragging conscious seals across the ice floes with boat hooks, shooting seals and leaving them to suffer in agony, stockpiling dead and dying animals, and even skinning seals alive. " http://tinyurl.com/oovgc Sorry JF, Il n'y a pas raison commerciale dans ce monde pour expliquer ce massacre. And it is a shame your pride considering it a "job".. SignaturePopeye Listen, strange woman lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Monty Python www.finalprotectivefire.com JOF wrote: > Tina wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > JF oh yeah, je sais, un travail légal mais non moral.. Clairement tu as besoin de lire un peu plus: "How Are the Seals Killed? The Canadian Marine Mammal Regulations, which govern the hunt, stipulate sealers may kill seals with wooden clubs, hakapiks (large ice-pick-like clubs) and guns. In the Gulf of St. Lawrence, clubs and hakapiks are the killing implement of choice, and in the Front, guns are more widely used. It is important to note that each killing method is demonstrably cruel. Because sealers shoot at seals from moving boats, the pups are often only wounded. The main sealskin processing plant in Canada deducts $2 from the price they pay for the skins for each bullet hole they find-therefore sealers are loath to shoot seals more than once. As a result, wounded seals are often left to suffer in agony-many slip beneath the surface of the water where they die slowly and are never recovered. Is the Seal Hunt Cruel? Yes. In 2001, a report by an independent team of veterinarians who studied the hunt concluded that governmental regulations regarding humane killing were neither being respected nor enforced, and that the seal hunt failed to comply with Canada's basic animal welfare standards. Shockingly, the veterinarians found that in 42% of the cases they studied, the seals had likely been skinned alive while conscious. Parliamentarians, journalists, and scientists who observe Canada's commercial seal hunt each year continue to report unacceptable levels of cruelty, including sealers dragging conscious seals across the ice floes with boat hooks, shooting seals and leaving them to suffer in agony, stockpiling dead and dying animals, and even skinning seals alive. " http://tinyurl.com/oovgc Sorry JF, Il n'y a pas raison commerciale dans ce monde pour expliquer ce massacre. And it is a shame your pride considering it a "job".. Hypocritical John Francis at his finest: "I don't hunt period, so I suppose in that sense you could say I have a problem with hunting of any kind. It's not that I'm against hunting in principle, just that I guess I had enough killing when I worked a few summers in a slaughterhouse killing pigs, cattle and sheep because the idea of killing for sport holds no appeal for me. Kind of unmanly I know, but it's just the way it is. Seems to me that using a remotely operated killing device isn't very sporting, but then one could say the same about some of the other weapons and methods used in hunting today. I'd like to see some of our great white hunter types go up against a Kodiak, or even a little bitty Grizzly, mano a mano, or even armed with knives. Methinks many of our fine camo-bedecked hunters' cojones would shrivel to peas and their feet would be blistered from the pace they set scootin' in retreat. But that's another story." -JF Of course, John thinks Canadians killing seals is just really, like, a "boys-will-be-boys" thing, and doesn't really count as hunting, killing, slaughtering, or anything negative, because the participants are all -Canadian-, see. > Hypocritical John Francis at his finest: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > their feet would be blistered from the pace they set scootin' in > retreat. But that's another story." -JF Indeed. Another fantasy/blanket insult by rec.scuba's premier bigot. > Of course, John thinks Canadians killing seals is just really, like, a > "boys-will-be-boys" thing, and doesn't really count as hunting, killing, > slaughtering, or anything negative, because the participants are > all -Canadian-, see. Well, they are "people" living in remote area's who depend upon the clubbing of baby seals to afford slacks. As contrasted by redneck flaunting shiney bangtoys, or "great white hunters." ******************** Ted Nugent on deer hunting. He was being interviewed by a British journalist. The journalist asked,"What do you think the last thought is in the head of a deer before you shoot it? Is it, `Are you my friend?` or is it `Are you the one who killed my brother?'" Nugent replied, "They aren't capable of that kind of thinking. All they care about is, 'What am I going to eat next, who am I going to screw next, and can I run fast enough to get away. They are very much like the French in that way." > Well, they are "people" living in remote area's who depend upon the clubbing > of baby seals to afford slacks. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > can I run fast enough to get away. They are very much like the French in > that way." Ah, le Messie de marais. Je comprends pourquoi que vous l'adoreriez. Il obtient pour parader environ dans le camouflage avec les fusils. Je soupçonne que la vérité est que vous l'enviez. Il amuse jouer avec les fusils à la télévision et ils le paient pour lui. Pauvre petit vous. JF <snip e vous> Not that I have any reason at all to be even interested in French, but before I translated it, I had no doubt it was another blanket insult. I am not the little one. You rise to the bait as a big mouthed sucker should. Vieil Homme > Of course, John thinks Canadians killing seals is just really, like, a > "boys-will-be-boys" thing, and doesn't really count as hunting, killing, > slaughtering, or anything negative, because the participants are > all -Canadian-, see. Vous me manquez déjà ? JF Popeye wrote: >> Of course, John thinks Canadians killing seals is just really, like, a >> "boys-will-be-boys" thing, and doesn't really count as hunting, killing, >> slaughtering, or anything negative, because the participants are >> all -Canadian-, see. >Vous me manquez déjà ? juste un slapdown rapide tout en passant près. SignaturePopeye Listen, strange woman lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Monty Python www.finalprotectivefire.com > Popeye wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > juste un slapdown rapide tout en passant près. Chienne > >Vous me manquez déjà ? > > juste un slapdown rapide tout en passant près. just a quick slapdown all while passing near???? Hillbilly french? JF Popeye wrote: > >Vous me manquez déjà ? > > juste un slapdown rapide tout en passant près. just a quick slapdown all while passing near???? Seem to do the trick. Hillbilly french? Better than you deserved. You don't understand plain English any better. JF <right on cue> > Hillbilly french? Boy, *that* one was out of left field. No one saw that coming. >> > Ah bien? Ce n'est pas bien. :- ( tu ne dois pas manger les phoques >> > parce que tu sais que le chasse est cruelle. Il est a massacre. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Clairement tu as besoin de lire un peu plus: <snip> >http://tinyurl.com/oovgc > >Sorry JF, Il n'y a pas raison commerciale dans ce monde pour expliquer >ce massacre. >And it is a shame your pride considering it a "job".. You should read other sources, such as http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/sealhunt/ This topic seems to fire such controversy only because the seals are "cute." Anthropomophisation. Cause du jour. I don't believe there'd be a peep heard if they were as ugly as sin. Witless people such as Paul McCartney, floundering around on the floes, thinking he was in Newfoundland (he was really just off of PEI), don't help the "cause" very much. Nobody says much about abattoirs although similar things occur there. Meat-packers and butchers have their "jobs," and they're no less respectable than anyone else, & they don't tend to have more violent tendencies than any other occupation. You chose to be a vegetarian, and I'd defend your right to choose, but you can't force your choices on everyone else. --- Mike from Ottawa > You should read other sources, such as > http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/sealhunt/ > > This topic seems to fire such controversy only because the seals are > "cute." This from a jackass who wants to disarm Americans. > Anthropomophisation. Cause du jour. I don't believe there'd > be a peep heard if they were as ugly as sin. Actually the outrage is because of the brutality and insult of the method of their death, and for many, agony. If the method of harvest werent so inhumanely disgusting, you might have a point. The image of a bunch of grinning hakapik swingers, leaving a trail of bloody, writhing babies behind them is pretty offensive and disturbing. Then to think of the ones skinned alive. Unless, of course, they were Canadian. Then it's good family fun! Then, what is disgusting about it all is the fact that people exist that are f.cked in the head and vain enough to *need* such a fur to wear to the opera, or whatever. Regardless of the brutality and suffering associated with that accessory. You cant condemn any other nation or people for anything, as long as you f.ckers make excuses for clubbing baby seals to death, and near death, for their skins. > Actually the outrage is because of the brutality and insult of the method > of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > them is pretty offensive and disturbing. Then to think of the ones skinned > alive. > Then, what is disgusting about it all is the fact that people exist that > are > f.cked in the head and vain enough to *need* such a fur to wear to the > opera, or whatever. > Regardless of the brutality and suffering associated with that accessory. > You cant condemn any other nation or people for anything, as long as you > f.ckers make excuses for clubbing baby seals to death, and near death, for > their skins. I left the above intact because, in my opinion, it's the real issue with the seals. I'll add the fact that most members of this group are quick to condemn the slaughter of sharks by those that collect only their fins while some seem far less concerned over the plight of these seals. Sharks have been known to bite people and, for the most part, aren't exactly cute, suggesting that Mike's belief that the seal deaths would not be in issue if they were ugly as sin is probably incorrect. Lee > You chose to be a vegetarian, and I'd defend your right to choose, but > you can't force your choices on everyone else. > > --- > Mike from Ottawa That may be the most well thought out, open minded thing you have ever posted here. Signature“TANSTAAFL” “All I can say is there had better be some cheese at the end of this maze……” ____________________________________________________________________________ "A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them; The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3 > > You chose to be a vegetarian, and I'd defend your right to choose, but > > you can't force your choices on everyone else. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > That may be the most well thought out, open minded thing you have ever > posted here. Lets see if he knows what it actually means. He wont admit it, but he is finally getting what we have been saying all along. I guess it just sounds better coming from him. > oh yeah, je sais, un travail légal mais non moral.. > Sorry JF, Il n'y a pas raison commerciale dans ce monde pour expliquer > ce massacre. > And it is a shame your pride considering it a "job".. Donc vous pensez c'est immoral pour vouloir nourrir votre famille? Il y a beaucoup de travaux méchants dans ce monde. Vous vous avez de la chance peut habiter sans salit vos mains. Vous êtes encore plus chanceux que vous pouvez regarder en bas votre nez à ceux qui mange la viande. Ce doit être merveilleux pour réveiller dans la matinée et savoir que vous êtes une meilleure personne que me. Je vous envie votre bonne fortune. JF > Donc vous pensez c'est immoral pour vouloir nourrir votre famille? Il y > a beaucoup de travaux méchants dans ce monde. Vous vous avez de la [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > savoir que vous êtes une meilleure personne que me. Je vous envie > votre bonne fortune. Damn John... You need to get that looked at... Sounds like you got a fuckin' Frog in your throat... > > Donc vous pensez c'est immoral pour vouloir nourrir votre famille? Il y > > a beaucoup de travaux méchants dans ce monde. Vous vous avez de la [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Damn John... You need to get that looked at... Sounds like you got a > fuckin' Frog in your throat... 5 years of french and latin classes. Not that I can even write the above without cheating some. I just saw some more mistakes in it. High school was a long long time ago. JF Grumman-581 wrote: > > Donc vous pensez c'est immoral pour vouloir nourrir votre famille? Il y > > a beaucoup de travaux méchants dans ce monde. Vous vous avez de la [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Damn John... You need to get that looked at... Sounds like you got a > fuckin' Frog in your throat... 5 years of french and latin classes. All in highschool, no doubt. Not that I can even write the above without cheating some. I just saw some more mistakes in it. High school was a long long time ago. Don't forget to spell check yourself, and add a bigoted remark. Get those cites yet, Lying John? JF > > Damn John... You need to get that looked at... Sounds like you got a > > fuckin' Frog in your throat... > > 5 years of french and latin classes. > > All in highschool, no doubt. That's right. When I was in school in Canada we had to do a 5 year program to get into university. They opted for something more like the American model (4 years) a few years ago. As I remember we needed at least one language to graduate from Grade 13 and get into university but a lot of us did two. The latin was more useful in the end. I would have far sooner studied auto mechanics, machine shop or woodworking for all those years but it just wasn't in the curriculum. We were only allowed those We weren't even offered typing (keyboarding) in those days if we took the academic route. > Don't forget to spell check yourself, and add a bigoted remark. Moi? JF >> > Damn John... You need to get that looked at... Sounds like you got a >> > fuckin' Frog in your throat... [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > That's right. When I was in school in Canada we had to do a 5 year > program to get into university. That's actually a good idea. > They opted for something more like the > American model (4 years) a few years ago. As I remember we needed at > least one language to graduate from Grade 13 and get into university > but a lot of us did two. The latin was more useful in the end. I would > have far sooner studied auto mechanics, machine shop or woodworking for > all those years but it just wasn't in the curriculum. Latin more useful than auto mechanics, machine shop, or woodworking. That explains a lot. > We were only > allowed those We weren't even offered typing (keyboarding) in those [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Moi? Oh, I forgot, sorry. You have a documented history of having different standards for Canadians. > JF SignaturePopeye Listen, strange woman lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Monty Python www.finalprotectivefire.com > You have a documented history of having different standards for Canadians. Mea culpa. I do tend to hold Canucks to a higher standard? JF > > You have a documented history of having different standards for Canadians. > > Mea culpa. I do tend to hold Canucks to a higher standard? Hold is innacurate; Pose would be more accurate. If you had to live to the standards by which you pass judgement... >> You have a documented history of having different standards for >> Canadians. > > Mea culpa. I do tend to hold Canucks to a higher standard? Did you get that impression the last two times I cited it? SignaturePopeye Listen, strange woman lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Monty Python www.finalprotectivefire.com > >> You have a documented history of having different standards for > >> Canadians. > > > > Mea culpa. I do tend to hold Canucks to a higher standard? > > Did you get that impression the last two times I cited it? Who can tell? Your citing history is, to say the least, overwhelming. I know you track all this citing crap obsessively so could you cite me to those last two cites you cited? JF >> >> You have a documented history of having different standards for >> >> Canadians. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > know you track all this citing crap obsessively so could you cite me to > those last two cites you cited? No. We've discussed this several times, but with your selective memory and all...we'll review. The cites that you're asking for have already been posted twice, at the least. In one example, you admitted you were wrong, but said there was no need to apologize for lying about your hypocrisy since we were "just Rec.scubans". So like you so frequently require of others, I think -you- should cite my point for me, if you so desire. All the others on Rec.scuba have seen it so much, there's no question. SignaturePopeye Listen, strange woman lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Monty Python www.finalprotectivefire.com > All the others on Rec.scuba have seen it so much, there's no question. Yup. That really clarifies it. JF >> All the others on Rec.scuba have seen it so much, there's no question. > > Yup. That really clarifies it. Nobody needed it clarified, including you. You've long established a pattern of asking for repeated cites just for the purpose of obfuscation. >>>> You have a documented history of having different standards for >>>> Canadians. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > know you track all this citing crap obsessively so could you cite me to > those last two cites you cited? while yours is just, well clueless and absent minded. you have not a clue about what you yourself just said. > JF > > Who can tell? Your citing history is, to say the least, overwhelming. I > > know you track all this citing crap obsessively so could you cite me to > > those last two cites you cited? > > while yours is just, well clueless and absent minded. > you have not a clue about what you yourself just said. Welcome back to the bandwagon, oh humour challenged one. JF > Welcome back to the bandwagon, oh humour challenged one. Yeah, well, you are the "funny" one around here. > > Welcome back to the bandwagon, oh humour challenged one. > > Yeah, well, you are the "funny" one around here. Well, with so many grumpy old men here, someone needs to lighten things up a tad. JF >> > Welcome back to the bandwagon, oh humour challenged one. >> >> Yeah, well, you are the "funny" one around here. > > Well, with so many grumpy old men here, someone needs to lighten things > up a tad. Your ballet slippers are pretty light, John. And sure, why not. Post what you think I lied about, again. Why only two? You've accused me of lying daily it seems. You really are starting to sound lame. -JOF Hokay!!!!!!!!!!!!! I've posted this every day, but maybe your "server" is selectively "dropping posts" as you've claimed before; =============== Still waiting for you to cite this lie: I guess for all the times I've accused you of using questionable data it shouldn't take me a second look to be sure this one was just one more fake in a long line of trumped up or at least selective data. -JOF =============== "Popeye" <popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote in message news:12f3hecpn8udq3e@news.supernews.com... > I guess for all the times I've accused you of using questionable data That's a lie. You've -never- once accused me of using questionable data, at least with a cite of any data. Please verify this (as if -that- would -ever- happen). When I use data (rarely), it comes from front line news publications* or the U.S. Government. > it shouldn't take me a second look to be sure this one was just one > more fake in a long line of trumped up or at least selective data. Should be -no- problem, with that "long line", for you to cite -several- instances of your accusation. Like last time, when it was about "buying the pot", eh? ================== And that being said the antigun arguments are proportionally useless for the same reasons. That's why I have trouble coming up with valid cites to support some of my contentions - it's hard to find objective evidence, and subjective evidence is misleading. -JOF Do you see though how all this discussion validates my contention that stats can be used, misused or abused? It's tough for the observer to know for sure which is the case, particularly if the comparability is really apples and oranges? -JOF 2000 Suds, this is the type of information the general public receives. This is simply an example of why I ask people to spend a little time investigating this question thoroughly. 2002 >On gun-related crime, the NRA tries to say that guns don't increase the >homicide rate. Compare the UK and the US. In the US there are 10 times as >many homicides per 100,000 population than in the UK. Doesn't that tell >people something? No. First off, get your information from government statistics, not pro -or- anti gun orgs. 2003 Stay off the HCI website and refer to government statistics. 2004 >From: "Greg Mossman" moss...@qnet.com > It's tough to refute all the studies sponsored by the wealthy NRA No it's not, they just make up sh.t. 2005 > I guess we could only trust statistics from the NRA, huh? As opposed to an anti-handgun source? Try the federal government. 2005 Andrew wrote: > Do you not think that just maybe the NRA is presenting only that data > which supports its objective? I don't employ NRA data, and didn't read the article. Although I'm a life member of the NRA, I realize their bias just as I realize the bias of antigun organization. My views come from the empirical evidence of my own experiences, and recorded history. When I need facts or numbers, I use government information. While its' perfect neither, it's at least somewhat less bias. > You are assuming that I have assumptions and you are assuming that > the NRA is presenting facts. You're still presenting the same assumptions, and, you've yet again assumed that I use NRA data. 2005 If memory serves me, I've never once quoted an NRA cite, or even one from the pro-gun cites that Scott uses. I only quote government figures. ======================= * sometimes, and not recently, I quote Lott, from Newsweek. The point is just as good as the numbers. ======================= Still waiting for you to cite this lie as well: ======================== > uhoh. Now that your liar ploy has been turned on you, you're gonna drag > out the obfuscation gambit. Do you have any of the cites I've asked for? Can you cite the lie you're referring to above? Did you have any comment about the lie you told that I already cited? Please remember that while you falsely accuse me quite frequently, flatly refusing to provide evidence, I'm not the one that sent you the video. Are you going to start in on someone else now, who's treated you respectfully in the past? Well, there's that credibility of yours I describe. >Go ahead. It's rainy and crappy here so I'm > working at the computer anyway. I'll keep an eye on the group for more > of your nonsense. I appreciate the diversion. ======================= > But since you chose to post the email response I sent to you, I'll just > use it as an opening to put an end to my involvement in this peculiar [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > JF Scuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrryyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy yyyyyyyyyy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Guess we aren't getting any cites of your previous accusations, or your lies from today. Imaaaaaaaaaagine -that-. Oh, and, try and keep this in mind, the next time we discuss scurrying, and ass-whippings, to save me having to look it up. Perfect timing, too, I have to froth over to get the Sex Twins to take them to "Pirates Of The Caribbean", and then maybe a night dive. Enjoy the view of your own rectum. ;-) SignaturePopeye Listen, strange woman lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Monty Python www.finalprotectivefire.com >>> Who can tell? Your citing history is, to say the least, overwhelming. I >>> know you track all this citing crap obsessively so could you cite me to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Welcome back to the bandwagon, oh humour challenged one. none of us are humor challenged. we are all laughing at your dancing. you seem to be the only one who does not see the humor in your positions. > JF > >> > Damn John... You need to get that looked at... Sounds like you got a > >> > fuckin' Frog in your throat... [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > That explains a lot. I thought he was saying that the Latin was more useful than the French. <snip> >> >> You've obviously never had seal flipper pie. Here ya go: >> >> http://www.joycesfinecooking.com/Ethnic/newfoundland_flipper_pie.htm [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >Ah bien? Ce n'est pas bien. :- ( tu ne dois pas manger les phoques >parce que tu sais que le chasse est cruelle. Il est a massacre. La vie est cruelle. Je ne chasse pas, mais j'ai beaucoup des amis qui chassent. J'aime pêcher, et c'est probablement cruel aussi, non? Je mange de la viande et des légumes, et tu manges des légumes. Vous avez fait votre choix, et j'ai fait le mien. Je n'insiste pas que tu dois cesser le massacre des plantes. --- Mike from Ottawa > Do they have a constitutional right to club seals to death? Please refer me > to the portion of your constitution that says the right to kill animals > shall not be infringed. I can't do that but it raises an interesting point. Are you saying that a proper constitution details every nuance of a protected right and if the language isn't specific and unequivocal then there exists no right? When you've answered yes or no, please tell me what well-regulated militia you belong to, and where in your Constitution it says you have the right to shoot anyone at your discretion. JF > When you've answered yes or no, please tell me what well-regulated > militia you belong to, and where in your Constitution it says you have > the right to shoot anyone at your discretion. Where do you get this bullshit? >> Do they have a constitutional right to club seals to death? Please refer >> me >> to the portion of your constitution that says the right to kill animals >> shall not be infringed. > I can't do that but it raises an interesting point. Are you saying that > a proper constitution details every nuance of a protected right and if > the language isn't specific and unequivocal then there exists no right? Nope. Are you saying my right to defend myself is comparable to the right to club seals to death? > When you've answered yes or no, please tell me what well-regulated > militia you belong to, and where in your Constitution it says you have > the right to shoot anyone at your discretion. Since Militia is, by definition, a citizen army, I'm part of the well regulated militia of the United States of America. Don't you with you belonged to one too? By the way, the second amendment doesn't say that members of a well regulated militia are the only ones that may keep and bear arms. It says in order to provide for one, the right (note the presumption that the right exists independent of the amendment) shall not be infringed . . . but you knew that. By the way, the US Attorney General has ruled that the right is, in fact, clearly intended to be extended to citizens of the United States and that it is dependent neither on actual membership in a militia or to any state or other governmental entity . . . but you knew that too. Guess it just slipped your mind. Lee > When you've answered yes or no, please tell me what well-regulated > militia you belong to, The Sociopaths of the Texas Republic... A fine, honorable institution... > and where in your Constitution it says you have > the right to shoot anyone at your discretion. I think that was covered under the "pursuit of happiness" clause... >> and where in your Constitution it says you have >> the right to shoot anyone at your discretion. Where in our posts do you see indications that we think we do? Lee > > Do they have a constitutional right to club seals to death? Please refer me > > to the portion of your constitution that says the right to kill animals [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > militia you belong to, and where in your Constitution it says you have > the right to shoot anyone at your discretion. Read Federalist #46. Its pretty clear what the founders intended. > JF Dennis > > When you've answered yes or no, please tell me what well-regulated > > militia you belong to, and where in your Constitution it says you have > > the right to shoot anyone at your discretion. > > Read Federalist #46. Its pretty clear what the founders intended. To protect the authority of State gov'ts against the tyranny of the Feds. JF > To protect the authority of State gov'ts against the tyranny of the > Feds. Read the Attorney General's decision on the same topic and you'll see where you went wrong in your interpretation. Lee > > To protect the authority of State gov'ts against the tyranny of the > > Feds. > > Read the Attorney General's decision on the same topic and you'll see where > you went wrong in your interpretation. That's Lee, forever the optimist. > That's Lee, forever the optimist. It's the only way to be. Expect the best, but plan for the worst. Lee > > That's Lee, forever the optimist. > > It's the only way to be. Expect the best, but plan for the worst. I expect the worst, and am delighted with the best. > > Do they have a constitutional right to club seals to death? Please refer me > > to the portion of your constitution that says the right to kill animals [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > militia you belong to, and where in your Constitution it says you have > the right to shoot anyone at your discretion. The American Populace. Oh, and well regulated didn't mean back then what you think it means today. > Oh, and well regulated didn't mean back then what you think it means today. Main Entry: reg·u·late Function: transitive verb Inflected Forms: -lat·ed; -lat·ing 1 : to govern or direct according to rule 2 a : to bring under the control of law b : to make regulations for or concerning What did it mean back then? JF >> Oh, and well regulated didn't mean back then what you think it means today. >What did it mean back then? >JF Back then, it referred to being well provisioned. Basically, it was a reference to the amount of weaponry and ammunition. If you can find a copy (and you really wnat to learn the history of the amendment), I highly recommend "The Second Amendment Primer" by Les Adams. I can't imagine that if I were in your shoes I would care enough to read it, but you'll find it contains quite a bit of interesting material. >>> Oh, and well regulated didn't mean back then what you think it means >>> today. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > contains quite a bit of > interesting material. He would actively avoid it. It's truth. SignaturePopeye "I'm no longer concerned about seeing civilization arrest its decline into barbarism, I'm simply enjoying the spectacle." -Vox Day www.finalprotectivefire.com > "Chris Guynn" <chris.guynn@gmail.com> wrote in message <snip> > It's truth. Just curious, but have you read it? If not, I highly recommend it. I read my dad's copy or I'd offer to send it to you. >> "Chris Guynn" <chris.guynn@gmail.com> wrote in message > <snip> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > read my dad's copy or I'd > offer to send it to you. Yes, I have. Popeye "I'm no longer concerned about seeing civilization arrest its decline into barbarism, I'm simply enjoying the spectacle." -Vox Day www.finalprotectivefire.com > >>> Oh, and well regulated didn't mean back then what you think it means > >>> today. > > > >>What did it mean back then? Been explained to you too many times to imagine how you could so conveniently forget it, again.. f.ck you are stupid. Looking this up took all of 15 or 20 seconds. http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm The meaning of the phrase "well-regulated" in the 2nd amendment From: Brian T. Halonen <halonen@csd.uwm.edu> The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment: 1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations." 1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world." 1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial." 1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor." 1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding." 1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city." The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message