 |
 | 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 / January 2007Still waiting....
John: Since you seem to be "missing" these questions. (or your server is "dropping" some posts again....(I am sure you aren't ducking the question).... "I've always supported the rights of responsible individuals to keep appropriate guns. Where we diverge is in the definition of responsible and appropriate." JOF 1/14/07 Will you define "responsible" and "appropriate"? or will you continue to duck the question as you have so often in the past?  Signature“TAANSTAFL” ____________________________________________________________________________ "A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them; The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3 ____________________________________________________________________________ > John: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > or will you continue to duck the question as you have so often in the > past? <snicker> Universally recognized. Douglas W "Popeye" Frederick ha escrito: > <snicker> > > Universally recognized. You back from your run already? JF > Douglas W "Popeye" Frederick ha escrito: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > You back from your run already? Everybody has your number now, fuckwit. SignaturePopeye A skilled, armed man lives on a plane of security and contentment different from that of others. The man who cannot cut it, envies, fears and sometimes hates the man who can. -Cooper www.finalprotectivefire.com > Everybody has your number now, fuckwit. I think everyone has for quite a while, its only that some were willing to give him more benefit of doubt, which is also rapidly evaporating. I thought he was on vacation and was going to avoid these threads... He is the moth to our flame. Problem is he has painted himself into a corner tighter than the skin on a grape, so now he has (not much effort required) to look like an idiot to try and cover his willful malice and bigotry. Scott ha escrito: > > Everybody has your number now, fuckwit. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > grape, so now he has (not much effort required) to look like an idiot to try > and cover his willful malice and bigotry. I miss the comic relief. And much of the credit goes to you. JF Douglas W "Popeye" Frederick ha escrito: > > You back from your run already? > > Everybody has your number now, fuckwit. So you lied about the trip huh? JF Hwæt! "JOF" <jofrancis@gmail.com>, soðe: > Douglas W "Popeye" Frederick ha escrito: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > So you lied about the trip huh? Just like he lied about keeping a firearm hidden in his truck. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > Douglas W "Popeye" Frederick ha escrito: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > So you lied about the trip huh? Why don't you make a specific accusation, and back it, with, say, $1000 bet? Because you're too much of a pussy to -ever- back your mouth with your wallet, that's why. Hwæt! "Douglas W \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com>, soðe: > Why don't you make a specific accusation, and back it, with, > say, $1000 bet? OK, you lied about keeping a gun in your truck. You were too chickenshit to prove your 2nd Amendment right by keeping it in your truck when you drove into Canada. "How do you think I drive around the country with [a gun] in the truck? It's a felony, federally, and in at least 45 states. Since it -is- my 2nd Amendment right, do you suggest I put a RKBA sticker right where the trooper puts his foot on the fuel tank?" - "Douglas W \"Popeye\" Frederick" October 16, 2006 "Except for four instances, I haven't carried a firearm since around March." - "Douglas W \"Popeye\" Frederick" December 22, 2006 SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com dazed and confuzzed ha escrito: > John: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Will you define "responsible" and "appropriate"? Sure, but the dictionary already has mine. It's yours that must be peculiar. Responsible - having a capacity for moral decisions and therefore accountable; capable of rational thought or action Appropriate - suitable or fitting for a particular purpose JF > Sure, but the dictionary already has mine. It's yours that must be > peculiar. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Appropriate - suitable or fitting for a particular purpose I accept your definitions. The gun laws of the United States currently require the capacity for moral decisions and for rational thought or action. Possession by those not capable of rational thought or action or unable to determine right from wrong, is specifically prohibited. It's a crime to give, sell, or allow access to anyone without those characteristics. The intended purpose of guns is to shoot. Therefore, by your definition, any gun capable of shooting is suitable and fitting for that purpose. As it happens, most of us, and the US law, impose a further restriction. We don't allow people who chose to commit felonies, even though they know that they are wrong, to own guns either. We, in fact, support tighter control of guns than you, in posting your conditions, do. Wonder how long it will be before you reject your own statement and definitions. Lee Hwæt! "Lee Bell" <pleebell2@bellsouth.net>, soðe: > Possession by those not capable of rational thought or action or > unable to determine right from wrong, is specifically prohibited Yet you support Douggy's right to possess a firearm. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >> Sure, but the dictionary already has mine. It's yours that must be >> peculiar. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > crime to give, sell, or allow access to anyone without those > characteristics. Bonanza! > The intended purpose of guns is to shoot. Therefore, by your definition, > any gun capable of shooting is suitable and fitting for that purpose. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Wonder how long it will be before you reject your own statement and > definitions. SignaturePopeye A skilled, armed man lives on a plane of security and contentment different from that of others. The man who cannot cut it, envies, fears and sometimes hates the man who can. -Cooper www.finalprotectivefire.com Lee Bell ha escrito: > > Appropriate - suitable or fitting for a particular purpose > > The intended purpose of guns is to shoot. Therefore, by your definition, > any gun capable of shooting is suitable and fitting for that purpose. That's a self-serving distortion, but not unexpected. > As it happens, most of us, and the US law, impose a further restriction. We > don't allow people who chose to commit felonies, even though they know that [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Wonder how long it will be before you reject your own statement and > definitions. I was asked for a definition of responsible and appropriate, not a commentary on your gun laws. I can give you lots of that, but it seems to make some folks' shorts get all twisty and uncomfortable. JF > Lee Bell ha escrito: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > That's a self-serving distortion, but not unexpected. Incorrect - rather it is a justifiable interpretation of a vague definition. > > As it happens, most of us, and the US law, impose a further restriction. We > > don't allow people who chose to commit felonies, even though they know that [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I was asked for a definition of responsible and appropriate, not a > commentary on your gun laws. I can give you lots of that, but it seems Now that is a lie. <snip> <quote> Since you seem to be "missing" these questions. (or your server is "dropping" some posts again....(I am sure you aren't ducking the question).... "I've always supported the rights of responsible individuals to keep appropriate guns. Where we diverge is in the definition of responsible and appropriate." JOF 1/14/07 Will you define "responsible" and "appropriate"? </quote> You were asked for the definition of "responsible" as regards to individuals owning guns and "appropriate" as regards to the guns themselves. Dennis Dennis (Icarus) ha escrito: > > Lee Bell ha escrito: > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Incorrect - rather it is a justifiable interpretation of a vague definition. You guys should get tired of stroking each other. Your wives will get jealous. > > > As it happens, most of us, and the US law, impose a further restriction. > We [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Now that is a lie. In the popular parlance - cite. And use something that isn't flush with gunny cant. Make it something that grownups can understand and relate to, not just the shooters among us. > <quote> > Since you seem to be "missing" these questions. (or your server is [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > You were asked for the definition of "responsible" as regards to individuals > owning guns and "appropriate" as regards to the guns themselves. Actually it isn't, as you could have read in the part you quoted above, but in any case, that's what you got. Sorry if it's too hard for you to deal with when it doesn't have gun words in it. > You guys should get tired of stroking each other. Your wives will get > jealous. A response worthy of Reef Fish. When you've put your foot so far in your mouth that there's no hope of recovering, use a personal insult to divert attention from your dilemma. It doesn't work for him either. Lee Lee Bell ha escrito: > > You guys should get tired of stroking each other. Your wives will get > > jealous. > > A response worthy of Reef Fish. When you've put your foot so far in your > mouth that there's no hope of recovering, use a personal insult to divert > attention from your dilemma. It doesn't work for him either. That's the funniest thing I've read tonight, one of you taking exception to an insult. Give it up. You guys have worked this righteous indignation crap to the limit. Time to get real. It's a two way street. JF >> > You guys should get tired of stroking each other. Your wives will get >> > jealous. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > That's the funniest thing I've read tonight, one of you taking > exception to an insult. Not at all. Your insults are no more effective that his. I just wanted you to be sure to recognize the company your ploy puts you in. Lee Hwæt! "JOF" <jofrancis@gmail.com>, soðe: > Lee Bell ha escrito: >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > righteous indignation crap to the limit. Time to get real. It's > a two way street. Not to them. They simply can't handle it when they crap they dish out is shoved back into their faces. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >> You guys should get tired of stroking each other. Your wives will get >> jealous. "Childish insults say more about you than him. Sorry." -JOF > A response worthy of Reef Fish. When you've put your foot so far in your > mouth that there's no hope of recovering, use a personal insult to divert > attention from your dilemma. It doesn't work for him either. SignaturePopeye A skilled, armed man lives on a plane of security and contentment different from that of others. The man who cannot cut it, envies, fears and sometimes hates the man who can. -Cooper www.finalprotectivefire.com > Dennis (Icarus) ha escrito: > > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > You guys should get tired of stroking each other. Your wives will get > jealous. So explain why you think Lee's interpretation of your definition is incorrect, given your vague definition? > > > > As it happens, most of us, and the US law, impose a further restriction. > > We [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > In the popular parlance - cite. As I've explained previously, once you begin providing cites that have been requested some time agn, then you'll get cites from me. That being said, I explain WHY what you said is a lie. D&C was asking SPECIFICALLY about individual responsibility in owning guns, and what gns are "appropriate". > And use something that isn't flush with gunny cant. Make it something > that grownups can understand and relate to, not just the shooters among > us. This IS somehtig grownups understand. Heck, aparently even 12 year olds understand it. > > <quote> > > Since you seem to be "missing" these questions. (or your server is [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Actually it isn't, as you could have read in the part you quoted above, Actually, it is, since I did read what is above. > but in any case, that's what you got. Sorry if it's too hard for you to > deal with when it doesn't have gun words in it. Too hard to deal with? Please. Uselessly vague? Yes. Dennis Hwæt! "JOF" <jofrancis@gmail.com>, soðe: > You guys should get tired of stroking each other. Your wives > will get jealous. Nah, their wives are relieved. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > And use something that isn't flush with gunny cant. Make it something > that grownups can understand and relate to, not just the shooters among > us. There's another keeper. > > And use something that isn't flush with gunny cant. Make it something > > that grownups can understand and relate to, not just the shooters among > > us. > There's another keeper. Galactic bigotry and ignorance on display yet again. I sure wish you would get bored with this stale, old f.cking turd. Your foot has got to be getting sore from burying it in his a.s. >>Lee Bell ha escrito: >> [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > > Dennis I even clarified it in a response, but so far....nothing. Signature“TAANSTAFL” ____________________________________________________________________________ "A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them; The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3 ____________________________________________________________________________ >> > Appropriate - suitable or fitting for a particular purpose >> >> The intended purpose of guns is to shoot. Therefore, by your definition, >> any gun capable of shooting is suitable and fitting for that purpose. > > That's a self-serving distortion, but not unexpected. It's a statement of fact. There's not an ounce of distortion in it. It is not my fault your definitions don't suit your purpose. I guess you answered my question. It only took a few hours before you tried to deny your own words. Lee Lee Bell ha escrito: > >> > Appropriate - suitable or fitting for a particular purpose > >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I guess you answered my question. It only took a few hours before you tried > to deny your own words. Wow! Do you actually think anyone except the favoured few believe this nonsense you spout? JF > dazed and confuzzed ha escrito: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Sure, but the dictionary already has mine. It's yours that must be > peculiar. Nice sidestep. Define them in the context of your original statement. (the dictionary can't help you here). Again, be as specific as needed to eliminate any ambiguities. > Responsible - having a capacity for moral decisions and therefore > accountable; capable of rational thought or action > > Appropriate - suitable or fitting for a particular purpose > > JF Signature“TAANSTAFL” ____________________________________________________________________________ "A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them; The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3 ____________________________________________________________________________ dazed and confuzzed ha escrito: > >>Will you define "responsible" and "appropriate"? > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Again, be as specific as needed to eliminate any ambiguities. I just did. Deal with it. Sorry if it hurts. JF > dazed and confuzzed ha escrito: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > JF no, you didn't You sidestepped. Methinks you don't have more than a hazy definition in your mind, or you are hiding something. Either way, you are avoiding the question. Signature“TAANSTAFL” ____________________________________________________________________________ "A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them; The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3 ____________________________________________________________________________ dazed and confuzzed ha escrito: > > dazed and confuzzed ha escrito: > > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Either way, you are avoiding the question. Methinks you've overworked this ploy. It ceased to be credible quite a while ago. Now you just make yourself look stupid with it. JF > dazed and confuzzed ha escrito: > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > JF So define what you mean in your statement. Until you do so, you lose credibility. You have danced, sidestepped, and even tried ignoring in order to answer a simple request for you to clarify your statement. Here it is, just so you know which one I am talking about: "I've always supported the rights of responsible individuals to keep appropriate guns. Where we diverge is in the definition of responsible and appropriate." JOF 1/14/07 Define for us what you mean by "responsible individuals" and "appropriate guns". Since you so conveniently misunderstood what I asked before..... Again, be courageous. Take a stand. Define your position. Signature“TAANSTAFL” ____________________________________________________________________________ "A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them; The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3 ____________________________________________________________________________ > no, you didn't > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Either way, you are avoiding the question. No, it's "entertainment". He thinks this sh.t is funny. Making people who once respected him treat him like sh.t, after years of him treating those like sh.t, is fun. Even while on vacation, after vowing to not do it. He takes a small second place to "Nisarel". Old punk, instead of young punk. -- rec.scuba's resident pussy "Scott" <pugetsounddiver@gmail.com>, whined: > He thinks this sh.t is funny. Your yipping *is* funny. Watching Mikey and Douggy bluster about how they keep guns with them even when they travel to Canada and then watch them have to prove to customs that they don't have a gun was fuckin' hilarious. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com rec.scuba's resident pussy "Scott" <pugetsounddiver@gmail.com>, whined: > Making people who once respected him treat him like sh.t, Nobody is "making" you write anything, pussy. It figures you'd blame other people for your own deviant behaviour. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com <snip> > > I just did. Deal with it. Sorry if it hurts. > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > You sidestepped. SSSSSSSSSSSSSCCCCCCCCCCCUUUUUUUUUUURRRRRRRRRRRYYYYYYYYYY! > Methinks you don't have more than a hazy definition in your mind, or you > are hiding something. > > Either way, you are avoiding the question. SignatureDennis > dazed and confuzzed ha escrito: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > I just did. Deal with it. Sorry if it hurts. No, you didn't. Or did you forget the discussion we had about "morality"? Your position was that morality was pretty much an individual choice. Morals, right & wrong etc depended on one's point of view. Do you remember that? I hope so. Given that, reconcile your definitions with your views on "morality" :-) Dennis > dazed and confuzzed ha escrito: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > I just did. Deal with it. Sorry if it hurts. It sure didn't hurt our side. "Sorry" is right, all right. > dazed and confuzzed ha escrito: > > John: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Responsible - having a capacity for moral decisions and therefore > accountable; capable of rational thought or action Far too vague for a legal definition. I mean, moral decisions are akin to right & wrong, and didn't we have a long discussion about what one person thinks is right, antoher thinks is wrong? > Appropriate - suitable or fitting for a particular purpose Again, far too vague. Dennis Dennis (Icarus) ha escrito: > > dazed and confuzzed ha escrito: > > > John: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Again, far too vague. Bullshit. Get a lawyer if you want legal jargon. JF > Dennis (Icarus) ha escrito: > > > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Bullshit. Get a lawyer if you want legal jargon. We're talking about laws, John. Or have your forgotten this? Dennis >> Dennis (Icarus) ha escrito: >>>> dazed and confuzzed ha escrito: [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > We're talking about laws, John. > Or have your forgotten this? ouch!!! the micromemory strikes again!! > Dennis > ouch!!! > > the micromemory strikes again!! I often think of you as Minimind but never as Micromemory, Bob. We could add it to your list though. Had any original thoughts lately or still just playing echo to the Bang Gang? JF >> ouch!!! >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > could add it to your list though. Had any original thoughts lately or > still just playing echo to the Bang Gang? what you think is of no consequence in any place of any value to me. obviously that includes rec.scuba, where you are a public a.shole. I was just reading your posts, and trying to find the right words to describe the posting jof persona. the best I could do so far was Ignorant stupid uncomprehending illogical untruthful intellectually bankrupt intellectually dishonest thoughtless shallow vacuous lazy unable to learn poorly educated > JF > what you think is of no consequence in any place of any value to me. > obviously that includes rec.scuba, where you are a public a.shole. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > bankrupt intellectually dishonest thoughtless shallow vacuous lazy > unable to learn poorly educated You forgot rabid bigot. > the best I could do so far was > > Ignorant stupid uncomprehending illogical untruthful intellectually > bankrupt intellectually dishonest thoughtless shallow vacuous lazy > unable to learn poorly educated Well, you get full marks for producing words. Now we need to work on coherency. JF >> the best I could do so far was >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Well, you get full marks for producing words. Now we need to work on > coherency. and you need to work on substantiative content. not just mental bubble blowing. not just throwing out words. you need to work on a intelligent well conceived idea, polished with thought, logic, and comprehension, and presented clearly and accurately. the hardest part for you will be ideas, logic, thought, comprehension, accuracy, and clarity... actually all of it seems to be alien to your way of posting. > JF Hwæt! bob crownfield <crownfield@verizon.net>, soðe: >> On Jan 23, 6:08 pm, bob crownfield <crownfi...@verizon.net> >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > not just mental bubble blowing. > not just throwing out words. Your post had an error, Bobby. It's been fixed. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >>> the best I could do so far was >>> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > >> JF One of my favorite quotes to some challenged co workers has always been "I know every one of those words and what they mean, I just have never seen them in that order". It sufices to quiet them down, if not get them to go away. "Douglas W "Popeye" Frederick" <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote in message news:... >> Douglas W "Popeye" Frederick ha escrito: >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Because you're too much of a pussy to -ever- back your mouth with your > wallet, that's why. Sssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.