Scuba Forum / General / June 2007
Dear John:
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick - 20 Jun 2007 07:02 GMT Gun seized at Edmonton courthouse Last Updated: Tuesday, June 19, 2007 | 4:52 PM MT CBC News Sheriffs seized a pistol at the Edmonton courthouse Monday, allegedly from a woman who shuffled up to security with a walker.
Shortly after lunch, a 57-year-old woman arrived at security pushing a walker and calmly put her brown purse into the bin to be X-rayed, said Sheriff Matthew Yez.
He alleges he found a loaded .22-calibre derringer handgun at the bottom of her purse.
"There were two rounds and it was ready to go. She was surprised that it was in there," Yez said.
Over the last 14 months, sheriffs have seized 2,700 weapons from people going into the courthouse.
<pretty stunning considering "Canadians don't carry for protection">
"Very first time that a gun has come through. Hopefully the last," said Yez.
The gun was confiscated and the woman and her 63-year-old husband were escorted from the courthouse.
Edmonton police later confiscated 10 weapons from the couple's home and another dozen guns from a firing range that belongs to them. All the weapons were registered.
The couple was only trying to renew some documents, said police, who don't believe the woman intended to cause anyone harm at the courthouse.
Police intend to charge the woman with transporting a loaded gun without a permit.
> So which one will you ban and confiscate? I don't know much about the different guns but based on the tv I watch there are lots of automatic weapons out there. In fact I'm sure they're in the majority, certainly in the handgun department. I guess my concern would be with the more easily concealed weapons capable of firing sustained bursts at extreme cycling rates. I think they're often called full auto, but it seems to me that any weapon that chambers another round automatically should probably be called an automatic. <snip>
> >> Since you intend to confiscate them, I'm sure you know what I mean.
> > Did I say I would confiscate them?
> Yes, several times. Delusion. -JOF
"Life is too short to be little. Man is never so manly as when he feels deeply, acts boldly, and expresses himself with frankness and with fervor." ~Benjamin Disraeli~
Popeye/ www.finalprotectivefire.com
JOF - 20 Jun 2007 13:15 GMT On Jun 20, 2:02 am, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote:
> Gun seized at Edmonton courthouse > Last Updated: Tuesday, June 19, 2007 | 4:52 PM MT [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > > Popeye/www.finalprotectivefire.com Yer point is?
JF
Dennis (Icarus) - 20 Jun 2007 14:20 GMT > On Jun 20, 2:02 am, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" > <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > > Yer point is? <not snipping so JOF doesn't whine about lack of context>
Dayum, and you accused ME of being obtuse?
> JF Dennis
JOF - 20 Jun 2007 14:47 GMT On Jun 20, 10:20 am, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> wrote:
> > On Jun 20, 2:02 am, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" > > <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 72 lines] > > Dayum, and you accused ME of being obtuse? Well, let's see now. What can we take from this?
Some registered gun owners are stupid or irresponsible or both?
Some registered gun owners haven't the common sense not to carry in places they know they shouldn't?
Some registered gun owners don't know where their loaded guns are at all times?
Some registered gun owners don't keep their loaded guns secure?
Canadian security systems work, at least some of the time?
Is this a shining example of the vaunted responsible gun ownership we hear about here?
Looks to me like a clown with too many guns and not enough common sense.
Is there any reason to think that the average American gun owner is any more responsible than Canucks?
So what did you get from it?
JF
Dennis (Icarus) - 21 Jun 2007 04:54 GMT > On Jun 20, 10:20 am, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 100 lines] > > So what did you get from it? Despite the faith that some folks place in gun control laws, they'll be broken. These were citizens, to the tune of 2700 times in 14 months. And that's at that one courthouse.
Heck, we just had security guard (private firm) shooting at each other (argument) at Walter Reed hospital You know, those responsible trained professionals. :-)
Dennis
Grumman-581 - 21 Jun 2007 06:29 GMT > Heck, we just had security guard (private firm) shooting at each other > (argument) at Walter Reed hospital. You know, those responsible trained > professionals. :-) Interesting that with all the shots fired, he didn't hit the other person... Kind of says something about the potential effectiveness of the security guards at Walter Reed, I guess...
Lee Bell - 21 Jun 2007 12:58 GMT >> Heck, we just had security guard (private firm) shooting at each other >> (argument) at Walter Reed hospital. You know, those responsible trained >> professionals. :-)
> Interesting that with all the shots fired, he didn't hit the other > person... Kind of says something about the potential effectiveness of the > security guards at Walter Reed, I guess... Not real surprising. We recently sponsored a charity pistol match for the Border Patrol. They're a nice bunch of guys and gals and everyone had a lot of fun. The difference, however, between those that shoot for fun and those that shoot because it's required by their job could not have been more obvious. We had to separate law enforcement professionals from the civilian shooters to ensure that those the match were held for had at a chance at winning something too. There was simply no comparison at all. The most common statement by the LEOs was, damn, I'm glad I don't have to face these guys. We're glad they don't have to face us too.
Last night, I shot a rifle and shotgun match. I fired 24 rounds at 24 shotgun targets, hitting every one, in about a minute and a half. That's about 4 seconds per shot, including time needed to move through the stage and to reload. My high capacity shotgun holds 8 rounds in the magazine. The best competitors did it in about half that much time. I shot well enough and fast enough, but did not manage to reload fast enough. In the rifle portion of the competition, I did much the same until a jam I could not clear put a stop to my progress through the stage. The shots I got to take were at steel targets less than 1/8 the size of a human torso, at more than 50 yards. No shots missed. Tonight, I'll compete with a pistol and somewhat shorter ranges, generally no more than about 25 yards. Depending on the stage design, it normally takes from 30 to 60 seconds for 30 rounds or so, again including the time required to move and reload. In 3 to 4 stages of about 30 rounds each, I rarely miss my target more than once or twice. The good competitors generally cut my time in half.
Lee
Dennis (Icarus) - 22 Jun 2007 12:55 GMT <snip>
I think the "out" would be that you & your group are far above-average gunowners. Yeah, that's it. So swhen the "average, untrained" gunowner" is being discussed, it doesn't include y'all
:-) Dennis
JOF - 22 Jun 2007 15:00 GMT On Jun 22, 8:48 am, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> wrote:
> <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > discussed, it doesn't include y'all > :-) That's a given. That's also why I asked what you gun savvy types got from that post Doug offered. I wasn't sure what point he was trying to make citing an irresponsible or at best cerebrally challenged legitimate American gun owner.
JF
Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick - 22 Jun 2007 22:15 GMT > On Jun 22, 8:48 am, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > JF Not that you would answer, but, when did I do that?
 Signature
"I wasn't going to get into any of this until later, but you asked a reasonable question. The problem for me in answering is that I'm theorizing with more intuited logic than facts." -JOF
Popeye/ www.finalprotectivefire.com
Dennis (Icarus) - 23 Jun 2007 00:57 GMT > > On Jun 22, 8:48 am, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Not that you would answer, but, when did I do that? My guess would be the reference to the Canadian gunowner trying to carry into the courthouse. You know, by one definition they're Americans too.
Dennis
Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick - 23 Jun 2007 02:39 GMT >> > On Jun 22, 8:48 am, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> >> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Dennis Oh, the little old lady in the walker carrying for self defense is the cerebrelly challenged person?
Check.
Well, he's been a lot further off than just his southern border. :-)
 Signature "I wasn't going to get into any of this until later, but you asked a reasonable question. The problem for me in answering is that I'm theorizing with more intuited logic than facts." -JOF
Popeye/ www.finalprotectivefire.com
JOF - 23 Jun 2007 04:13 GMT On Jun 22, 9:39 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote:
> >> > On Jun 22, 8:48 am, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> > >> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > Oh, the little old lady in the walker carrying for self defense is the > cerebrelly challenged person? The little old lady who admitted that she didn't know the gun was in her bag, etc?
> Check. > > Well, he's been a lot further off than just his southern border. :-) Scott - 23 Jun 2007 03:03 GMT > My guess would be the reference to the Canadian gunowner trying to carry > into the courthouse. > You know, by one definition they're Americans too. At least freed and kept free by Americans.
JOF - 23 Jun 2007 04:14 GMT > > My guess would be the reference to the Canadian gunowner trying to carry > > into the courthouse. > > You know, by one definition they're Americans too. > > At least freed and kept free by Americans. Huh? Was that supposed to mean something or is it just more thoughtless posturing?
JF
Dennis (Icarus) - 23 Jun 2007 04:59 GMT > > > My guess would be the reference to the Canadian gunowner trying to carry > > > into the courthouse. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Huh? Was that supposed to mean something or is it just more > thoughtless posturing? Looks to me that he's referring to Canadians being freed and kept free by Americans. I'm pretty sure he's said similar things before.
Dennis
Scott - 23 Jun 2007 05:06 GMT > Looks to me that he's referring to Canadians being freed and kept free by > Americans.
> I'm pretty sure he's said similar things before. Gets him every time.
Wonder why.
JOF - 23 Jun 2007 14:18 GMT > > Looks to me that he's referring to Canadians being freed and kept free by > > Americans. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Wonder why. ???
Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick - 23 Jun 2007 06:14 GMT >> > > My guess would be the reference to the Canadian gunowner trying to > carry [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Dennis John Forgets.
 Signature "I wasn't going to get into any of this until later, but you asked a reasonable question. The problem for me in answering is that I'm theorizing with more intuited logic than facts." -JOF
Popeye/ www.finalprotectivefire.com
Scott - 23 Jun 2007 11:55 GMT > > Looks to me that he's referring to Canadians being freed and kept free by > > Americans. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > John Forgets. Server was down.
Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick - 23 Jun 2007 12:19 GMT >> > Looks to me that he's referring to Canadians being freed and kept free > by [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Server was down. He was doing "adult things".
 Signature "I wasn't going to get into any of this until later, but you asked a reasonable question. The problem for me in answering is that I'm theorizing with more intuited logic than facts." -JOF
Popeye/ www.finalprotectivefire.com
Dennis (Icarus) - 23 Jun 2007 13:49 GMT > >> > > My guess would be the reference to the Canadian gunowner trying to > > carry [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > John Forgets. Google twisted the words and removed the context.
Dennis
JOF - 23 Jun 2007 14:19 GMT On Jun 23, 9:27 am, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> wrote:
> > >> > "Dennis (Icarus)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Dennis- You boys should wash your hands when you're done this little friendship circle. 8)
JF
Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick - 23 Jun 2007 16:51 GMT >> > John Forgets. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > You boys should wash your hands when you're done this little > friendship circle. 8) "Childish insults like that say more about you than about him. Sorry. "
While we're suffering your cognitive epitome, were you going to answer -any- of the points I reposted yesterday, on the previous posts where you made the usual blanket accusations and were easily proven wrong?
Or do we have -another- full scurry in effect?
I'll post them again, knowing how daunting the chore of googling your own post is for you.
Remember each delineation mark represents how many days it's been posted, with you trying to ignore it.
 Signature "I wasn't going to get into any of this until later, but you asked a reasonable question. The problem for me in answering is that I'm theorizing with more intuited logic than facts." -JOF
Popeye/ www.finalprotectivefire.com
JOF - 23 Jun 2007 17:23 GMT On Jun 23, 11:51 am, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote:
> >> > John Forgets. > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Remember each delineation mark represents how many days it's been posted, > with you trying to ignore it. Tell me more about this "cognitive epitome". Is there the slightest chance you meant epiphany? Their meanings are so disparate I'm not certain.
JF
Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick - 23 Jun 2007 19:19 GMT > On Jun 23, 11:51 am, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" > <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >> >> While we're suffering your cognitive epitome, Allow me to help:
cog·ni·tive /ˈkɒgnɪtɪv/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kog-ni-tiv] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –adjective 1. of or pertaining to cognition. 2. of or pertaining to the mental processes of perception, memory, judgment, and reasoning, as contrasted with emotional and volitional processes.
[Origin: 1580–90; < ML cognitīvus, equiv. to L cognit(us) known (see cognition) + -īvus -ive]
=============
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source e·pit·o·me /ɪˈpɪtəmi/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[i-pit-uh-mee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun 1. a person or thing that is typical of or possesses to a high degree the features of a whole class: He is the epitome of goodness. 2. a condensed account, esp. of a literary work; abstract.
It means that your handwashing response was the best you could come up with, thinking as hard as you could.
Dig it?
>>were you going to >> answer -any- of the points I reposted yesterday, on the previous posts [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > chance you meant epiphany? Their meanings are so disparate I'm not > certain. Were you going to comment on the rest of the post, or slither past it on your belly?
I love how you slide and dodge, and three weeks from now, you'll say "Scurries are just a figment of Doug's delusional imagination".
> JF
 Signature "I wasn't going to get into any of this until later, but you asked a reasonable question. The problem for me in answering is that I'm theorizing with more intuited logic than facts." -JOF
Popeye/ www.finalprotectivefire.com
JOF - 23 Jun 2007 21:51 GMT On Jun 23, 2:19 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 23, 11:51 am, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" > > <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > Were you going to comment on the rest of the post, or slither past it on > your belly? Okay. Are you certain you meant to use "epitome"? The "cognitive" part I understand but "epitome" just doesn't work in that context. If you're trying to say I'm the top of the heap when it comes to perception, memory, judgment, and reasoning my innate modesty would force me to argue that you're wrong on that as well, but thanks anyway. There are more than a few here who certainly don't take a back seat to me in the cognition department. Unfortunately they seldom become embroiled in these discussions we enjoy so much. All they seem to want to talk about is diving and saving reefs etc.
JF
Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick - 23 Jun 2007 23:52 GMT On Jun 23, 2:19 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote:
> "JOF" <jofran...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > Were you going to comment on the rest of the post, or slither past it on > your belly? Okay. Are you certain you meant to use "epitome"? The "cognitive" part I understand but "epitome" just doesn't work in that context. If you're trying to say I'm the top of the heap when it comes to perception, memory, judgment, and reasoning my innate modesty would force me to argue that you're wrong on that as well, but thanks anyway.
" It means that your handwashing response was the best you could come up with, thinking as hard as you could."
Dennis can help with the multisyllabic words.
There are more than a few here who certainly don't take a back seat to me in the cognition department. Unfortunately they seldom become embroiled in these discussions we enjoy so much. All they seem to want to talk about is diving and saving reefs etc.
JF
 Signature "I wasn't going to get into any of this until later, but you asked a reasonable question. The problem for me in answering is that I'm theorizing with more intuited logic than facts." -JOF
Popeye/ www.finalprotectivefire.com
JOF - 24 Jun 2007 03:20 GMT On Jun 23, 6:52 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote:
> On Jun 23, 2:19 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" > [quoted text clipped - 83 lines] > > Dennis can help with the multisyllabic words. If you wanna sound scholarly you should learn to use the big words correctly. A friend of mine used to have a great time at parties misusing all kinds of polysyllables just to watch the other folks squirm. A fun offshoot of the game was watching to see who didn't notice the abuses he foisted off as high falutin' edykated talk.
You can spin till the cows come home, or Dennis gives up, but you misused the word, my friend.
JF
Dennis (Icarus) - 24 Jun 2007 05:08 GMT >"JOF" <jofrancis@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1182651609.113584.134210@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>On Jun 23, 6:52 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" ><Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 85 lines] >> >> Dennis can help with the multisyllabic words.
>If you wanna sound scholarly you should learn to use the big words >correctly. A friend of mine used to have a great time at parties [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >You can spin till the cows come home, or Dennis gives up, but you >misused the word, my friend. No, he didn't. Consider that he mihgt've been sarcastic?
JF
JOF - 24 Jun 2007 14:16 GMT On Jun 24, 1:02 am, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> wrote:
> >"JOF" <jofran...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 108 lines] > > No, he didn't. Consider that he mihgt've been sarcastic? That occurred to me, but if he'd said it in language with which he was comfortable it might have worked better. As it was there was more of a sense of cognitive incongruity about it.
JF
Dennis (Icarus) - 24 Jun 2007 14:45 GMT On Jun 24, 1:02 am, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> wrote:
> >"JOF" <jofran...@gmail.com> wrote in message <snip>
:> >You can spin till the cows come home, or Dennis gives up, but you >> >misused the word, my friend. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >JF On thought that had occurred to me was that you were deliberately interpreting it so as to defuse the sarcasm. Good to see that's not the case.
Looked to me like he was pretty comfortable with the language used.
Dennis
Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick - 24 Jun 2007 14:52 GMT On Jun 24, 1:02 am, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> wrote:
> >"JOF" <jofran...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 112 lines] > > No, he didn't. Consider that he mihgt've been sarcastic? That occurred to me, but if he'd said it in language with which he was comfortable it might have worked better. As it was there was more of a sense of cognitive incongruity about it.
You mean -your- cognitive incongruity, as it were.
I'm perfectly comfortable in any language I use here.
A quick check, if it was within your capability, would show me having used those words, in one or another form, many times, without anyone ever having your difficulty understanding.
You, however, -continually- feign comprehension problems as an obfuscation tactic.
It's -your- comprehension and perception that are -constantly- called into question, often by yourself.
Would you like me to snip down any of those accusations that you made, that you're scurrying from?
I could lead you by the hans again, and snip this post down for it's fifth reposting, to read:
>>>>> Only when it's snippage that has quotes like "I don't agree." somehow >>>>> becoming "I agree." That's a more extreme example than we usually get [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >>>> >>>>> JF Now, everyone except you will remember the original context, but, it's still completely intact here regardless of your tapdancing and crying.
You've flatly stated that I -edit- ( the -correct- usage of the word, for once) quotes for signatures, and with your slimy Canadian innuendo, have implied that I do it frequently.
I've asked at least 5 or 6 times for an example, and we all still wait while you criticize extensively and pedantically elsewhere, having gone on to your next baseless and unsupported accusation.
And could you and I come to a consensus on what constitutes a scurry time-wise?
Do you think your fleeing from the truth for seven days should qualify, or would you like to set the mark at ten days?
 Signature "I wasn't going to get into any of this until later, but you asked a reasonable question. The problem for me in answering is that I'm theorizing with more intuited logic than facts." -JOF
Popeye/ www.finalprotectivefire.com
Dennis (Icarus) - 24 Jun 2007 15:22 GMT <snip>
> You mean -your- cognitive incongruity, as it were. > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > I could lead you by the hans again, and snip this post down for it's fifth > reposting, to read: Again, to help JOF out, hans is "hand".
<snip> Dennis
JOF - 24 Jun 2007 15:29 GMT On Jun 24, 11:23 am, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> wrote:
> <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Again, to help JOF out, hans is "hand". Thanks. That's an easy one, even for me.
JF
Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick - 24 Jun 2007 16:15 GMT > On Jun 24, 11:23 am, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Thanks. That's an easy one, even for me. I would actually take the time to apologize for my intermittent spell check.
I'm still struggling with both Vista, and it's effect on my Sprint modem.
One thing that helps me is when I see a misspelling on other's posts, I look at the keys around the errant symbol.
 Signature "I wasn't going to get into any of this until later, but you asked a reasonable question. The problem for me in answering is that I'm theorizing with more intuited logic than facts." -JOF
Popeye/ www.finalprotectivefire.com
JOF - 24 Jun 2007 15:28 GMT On Jun 24, 9:52 am, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote:
> On Jun 24, 1:02 am, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 121 lines] > > You mean -your- cognitive incongruity, as it were. There. That's better. Yer getting the hang of this now.
> I'm perfectly comfortable in any language I use here. That's fair. But shouldn't the acid test be whether or not the listener is comfortable with it, or at least has a chance of understanding it?
> A quick check, if it was within your capability, would show me having used > those words, in one or another form, many times, without anyone ever having > your difficulty understanding. Unfortunately just using words doesn't guarantee that they are properly used.
> You, however, -continually- feign comprehension problems as an obfuscation > tactic. No feigning. Your choice or at least juxtaposition of words occasionally confuses me.
> It's -your- comprehension and perception that are -constantly- called into > question, often by yourself. But most often by you and the metoo squad.
> Would you like me to snip down any of those accusations that you made, > that you're scurrying from? > > I could lead you by the hans again, and snip this post down for it's fifth > reposting, to read: It's kinda complimentary that you rely on my choice of words to fill your posts.
> >>>>> Only when it's snippage that has quotes like "I don't agree." somehow > >>>>> becoming "I agree." That's a more extreme example than we usually get [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >>>> Were you going to get back to Dennis on those cutting, snipping and > >>>> double standard accusation that you were bogusly incorrect on? Seems to me we have hashed that out. Perhaps you missed some bits in yer fervour to repost my words. 8)
> >>>> I notice you never answer those posts, just launch a new round, like > >>>> this. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >>>> I have a good time with my sigs, but, I suspect you're porking the pie > >>>> here. -Popeye Have you idea what Cockney rhyming slang is?
> >>>>> JF > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > while you criticize extensively and pedantically elsewhere, having gone on > to your next baseless and unsupported accusation. I've noticed. Who would be "we all"?
JF
Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick - 24 Jun 2007 16:35 GMT On Jun 24, 9:52 am, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote:
> "JOF" <jofran...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 135 lines] > > You mean -your- cognitive incongruity, as it were. There. That's better. Yer getting the hang of this now.
One of us is.
> I'm perfectly comfortable in any language I use here. That's fair. But shouldn't the acid test be whether or not the listener is comfortable with it, or at least has a chance of understanding it?
No more than throwing a ball to an armless catcher is a reflection on the pitcher.
When -one- person, and no one else, has comprehension issues, again, and again, and again, you would probably be the only person here who sees it being the authors' problem.
> A quick check, if it was within your capability, would show me having > used > those words, in one or another form, many times, without anyone ever > having > your difficulty understanding. Unfortunately just using words doesn't guarantee that they are properly used.
Nor does it require that they be pedantically interpreted as an obfuscation.
> You, however, -continually- feign comprehension problems as an > obfuscation > tactic. No feigning. Your choice or at least juxtaposition of words occasionally confuses me.
Check.
I'll admit to being a juxtaposing guy, and in fact I speak that way as well.
I would suppose it comes from the extensive reading, since my short stint of higher education consisted mainly of beer drinking.
> It's -your- comprehension and perception that are -constantly- called > into > question, often by yourself. But most often by you and the metoo squad.
We're the only one you argue with.
And at any rate, we wouldn't be harping it if you hadn't already used it as an excuse.
> Would you like me to snip down any of those accusations that you made, > that you're scurrying from? > > I could lead you by the hans again, and snip this post down for it's > fifth > reposting, to read: It's kinda complimentary that you rely on my choice of words to fill your posts.
Complimentary.
Got it.
> >>>>> Only when it's snippage that has quotes like "I don't agree." > >>>>> somehow [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >>>> Were you going to get back to Dennis on those cutting, snipping and > >>>> double standard accusation that you were bogusly incorrect on? Seems to me we have hashed that out. Perhaps you missed some bits in yer fervour to repost my words. 8)
No, we didn't.
You accused me of snipping something out of context, that I had posted several times that day in it's complete form.
Then, you accused Dennis of a double standard, due to your lack of comprehension.
I have reposted the examples over and over again, and this is your first sliiiidddddding comment, and on this particular event only, IMA.
> >>>> I notice you never answer those posts, just launch a new round, like > >>>> this. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >>>> pie > >>>> here. -Popeye Have you idea what Cockney rhyming slang is?
Yeah, from "To Sir, With Love", one of my favorite movies, and a brief example in Ocean's Eleven.
I caught it right off.
> >>>>> JF > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > while you criticize extensively and pedantically elsewhere, having gone on > to your next baseless and unsupported accusation. I've noticed. Who would be "we all"?
Look it up, while you're in the dictionary today.
JF
 Signature "I wasn't going to get into any of this until later, but you asked a reasonable question. The problem for me in answering is that I'm theorizing with more intuited logic than facts." -JOF
Popeye/ www.finalprotectivefire.com
Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick - 24 Jun 2007 05:47 GMT On Jun 23, 6:52 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote:
> "JOF" <jofran...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 90 lines] > > Dennis can help with the multisyllabic words. If you wanna sound scholarly you should learn to use the big words correctly.
Projecting again?
I'm not the one who dons personas here.
A friend of mine used to have a great time at parties misusing all kinds of polysyllables just to watch the other folks squirm.
Sure sounds like your kinda party.
People at one of my parties would have beaten him unconscious.
Whoo hoo, fun fun fun.
A fun offshoot of the game was watching to see who didn't notice the abuses he foisted off as high falutin' edykated talk.
You can spin till the cows come home, or Dennis gives up, but you misused the word, my friend.
A -pedantic- spell check, no less.
The sentance was clear and understandable, the meaning correct enough for those without $200 slacks.
While you were on the subject of spinning, were you going to get back to any of the extensive allegations you made this week?
Typical of the dozen or so posts you made today to crawl on your belly with this drivel, while avoiding -any- chance that you'd have to admit you're wrong.
 Signature "I wasn't going to get into any of this until later, but you asked a reasonable question. The problem for me in answering is that I'm theorizing with more intuited logic than facts." -JOF
Popeye/ www.finalprotectivefire.com
Dennis (Icarus) - 24 Jun 2007 14:38 GMT <snip>
> A -pedantic- spell check, no less. > > The sentance was clear and understandable, the meaning correct enough > for those without $200 slacks. Just to help JOF, the word "sentance" above should be "sentence", so that would be "The sentence was clear and understandable, the meaning correct enough for those without $200 slacks."
Now, on to my comment: I did think you were being sarcastic Like saying to someone who's said something really foolish and incorrect "So, genius, ....." I thought sure they had sarcasm in Canada, but I could be wrong.
<snip>
Dennis
JOF - 24 Jun 2007 15:16 GMT On Jun 24, 9:38 am, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> wrote:
> <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Now, on to my comment: > I did think you were being sarcastic I thought you meant Popeye, but if it was me, then you're possibly right. I'm occasionally sarcastic, or ironic, but without body language (facial expression) the words are too often taken literally.
> Like saying to someone who's said something really foolish and incorrect > "So, genius, ....." > I thought sure they had sarcasm in Canada, but I could be wrong. We do good sarcasm here. The problem is that sometimes it's too subtle and needs a "badda bing, badda boom" or drumroll to identify it. Can't very well do that in text-based rec.scuba.
JF
Dennis (Icarus) - 24 Jun 2007 20:32 GMT > On Jun 24, 9:38 am, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > right. I'm occasionally sarcastic, or ironic, but without body > language (facial expression) the words are too often taken literally. I did mean Popeye. His was the post to which I was replying, so in that case, the second person pronoun would be the author of that post.
> > Like saying to someone who's said something really foolish and incorrect > > "So, genius, ....." [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > and needs a "badda bing, badda boom" or drumroll to identify it. Can't > very well do that in text-based rec.scuba. And I imagine its not easy finding drumrolls even in provate conversation.
So here's some ways to help out on text-based rec.scuba - markup
<bada bing, badda boom> <drrumroll>
or XML-like enclosing tags: <sarcasm>...</sarcasm>
Dennis
JOF - 25 Jun 2007 04:09 GMT On Jun 24, 4:28 pm, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> wrote:
> > On Jun 24, 9:38 am, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > or XML-like enclosing tags: > <sarcasm>...</sarcasm> That would require intellectual capacity beyond my ken. I used to think I had a fair IQ before I came here and found out I'm less than mediocre.
I'm not familiar with XML but wouldn't tags like that be HTMLish as well, not that I've ever seen one for sarcasm, <bold> mebbe? 8)
JF
Dennis (Icarus) - 25 Jun 2007 05:41 GMT > On Jun 24, 4:28 pm, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > I'm not familiar with XML but wouldn't tags like that be HTMLish as > well, not that I've ever seen one for sarcasm, <bold> mebbe? 8) XML - eXtensible Markup Language HTML - Hypertext Markup Language
Both derived from SGML (Standardized Generalized Markup language.
With XML though, you can define your own tags, hence <sarcasm> </sarcasm> would indeed be valid
Dennis
JOF - 25 Jun 2007 13:46 GMT On Jun 25, 12:55 am, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> wrote:
> > On Jun 24, 4:28 pm, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] > With XML though, you can define your own tags, hence <sarcasm> </sarcasm> > would indeed be valid So how does the software translate those tags? Is there a sarcasm font or something?
JF
Dennis (Icarus) - 25 Jun 2007 15:11 GMT > On Jun 25, 12:55 am, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 73 lines] > So how does the software translate those tags? Is there a sarcasm font > or something? Using an API such as SAX or DOM, or they can write the parser themselves,
> JF JOF - 24 Jun 2007 15:08 GMT On Jun 24, 12:47 am, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote:
> On Jun 23, 6:52 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" > [quoted text clipped - 108 lines] > > People at one of my parties would have beaten him unconscious. I'm sure.
JF
Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick - 24 Jun 2007 16:35 GMT On Jun 24, 12:47 am, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote:
> "JOF" <jofran...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 115 lines] > > People at one of my parties would have beaten him unconscious. I'm sure.
JF
Me, too.
Then my friends would watch yours squirm.
Did you do a little snipping, there?
Huh.
Let me put that back for you:
> Whoo hoo, fun fun fun. > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > with this drivel, while avoiding -any- chance that you'd have to admit > you're wrong.
 Signature "I wasn't going to get into any of this until later, but you asked a reasonable question. The problem for me in answering is that I'm theorizing with more intuited logic than facts." -JOF
Popeye/ www.finalprotectivefire.com
Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick - 23 Jun 2007 16:40 GMT >> >> > > My guess would be the reference to the Canadian gunowner trying to >> > carry [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Google twisted the words and removed the context. Again.
Isn't there a screw to adjust that?
 Signature "I wasn't going to get into any of this until later, but you asked a reasonable question. The problem for me in answering is that I'm theorizing with more intuited logic than facts." -JOF
Popeye/ www.finalprotectivefire.com
JOF - 23 Jun 2007 14:17 GMT On Jun 23, 12:57 am, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> wrote:
> > > "Dennis (Icarus)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Americans. > I'm pretty sure he's said similar things before. He has. I'm curious though as to the facts about Americans freeing Canadians. When exactly is that supposed to have happened? I can't recall a time in my country's history when we've been less than free. We've gone through a few different relationships with Britain but none that I'd call horrific domination. Try to explain this lack of freedom in really easy words so I don't miss it.
You don't need to go into the Great Defender of Democracy speech. I get that. Your country has assumed the role of World leader and deserves the lion's share of the credit for the preservation of western democracy to whatever extent it needed protection over the best part of the last century.
But there's a difference between maintaining and creating freedoms.
JF
janusz_w@hotmail.com - 21 Jun 2007 10:34 GMT On 21 Cze, 06:54, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> wrote:
> > On Jun 20, 10:20 am, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 125 lines] > (argument) at Walter Reed hospital > You know, those responsible trained professionals. :-) I'm pretty sure they were ex-military guys. You know friendly fire etc. I'm sure that with automatic weapons and/or possibility to call an air strike they would have been scored better results.
Janusz
Grumman-581 - 22 Jun 2007 04:58 GMT > Well, let's see now. What can we take from this? > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > So what did you get from it? The thing is, ya'll are treating firearms different than any other tool... I have plenty of tools in my garage that could kill someone and I don't know where all of them are... Come to think of it, that's probably one of the reasons that us guys end up with multiple hammers... We can't find it when we need it and end up buying another one... A firearm is no different -- it's a tool and nothing more... From a size and noise standpoint, it's more than some other tools and less than some others...
Lee Bell - 22 Jun 2007 12:42 GMT > Is there any reason to think that the average American gun owner is > any more responsible than Canucks? Yep. The average American gun owner has gone through a separate background check every time he, or she, purchased a gun. Those that do not have a concealed weapon permit, have to wait five days from the day of purchase to delivery of the firearm. Those that have concealed weapon permits have gone through an even more stringent, as in up to 90 days, background check before one was issued. They are also required to prove participation in a weapons safety program. Those that hunt have to prove they have attended a hunter safety program before being given a license. Other than that, no, there's no reason.
Before you say it, I will. There are rare instances where someone who should not have a concealed weapon permit, still does. That is clearly a problem with enforcement of the existing laws, not a problem with the law itself. The Democrats have sworn to fix the problem. So far, no joy.
Lee
Dennis (Icarus) - 22 Jun 2007 12:55 GMT > > Well, let's see now. What can we take from this? > > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > -- it's a tool and nothing more... From a size and noise standpoint, it's > more than some other tools and less than some others... To hopefully clarify for the ..uhm...differently-abled folks, you're not implying that you don't know where your firearms are located. Correct?
Dennis
Scott - 20 Jun 2007 15:00 GMT > <not snipping so JOF doesn't whine about lack of context> Snip away, if you guys didnt quote his stupid, senile bullshit I wouldnt know he existed.
> Dayum, and you accused ME of being obtuse? That'd be JOF.
Scott - 20 Jun 2007 14:59 GMT > Edmonton police later confiscated 10 weapons from the couple's home and > another dozen guns from a firing range that belongs to them. All the weapons > were registered. Confiscation of registered weapons?
Who was the lying sack of sh.t that tried to tell us it wouldn't happen...
As it happens.
Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick - 20 Jun 2007 21:33 GMT >> Edmonton police later confiscated 10 weapons from the couple's home and >> another dozen guns from a firing range that belongs to them. All the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > As it happens. Bingo.
Ouch.
> So which one will you ban and confiscate? I don't know much about the different guns but based on the tv I watch there are lots of automatic weapons out there. In fact I'm sure they're in the majority, certainly in the handgun department. I guess my concern would be with the more easily concealed weapons capable of firing sustained bursts at extreme cycling rates. I think they're often called full auto, but it seems to me that any weapon that chambers another round automatically should probably be called an automatic. <snip>
> >> Since you intend to confiscate them, I'm sure you know what I mean.
> > Did I say I would confiscate them?
> Yes, several times. Delusion. -JOF
"Life is too short to be little. Man is never so manly as when he feels deeply, acts boldly, and expresses himself with frankness and with fervor." ~Benjamin Disraeli~
Popeye/ www.finalprotectivefire.com
Scott - 20 Jun 2007 22:49 GMT > >> Edmonton police later confiscated 10 weapons from the couple's home and > >> another dozen guns from a firing range that belongs to them. All the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Ouch. No worries, he will be right along to show us all what a lying piece of sh.t he is.
The other issue here is the number of firearms removed from or denied to the hands of violent criminals.
ZERO
JOF - 20 Jun 2007 22:13 GMT > > Edmonton police later confiscated 10 weapons from the couple's home and > > another dozen guns from a firing range that belongs to them. All the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > As it happens. You guys crack me up. You don't need anyone else to wind you up. You do it so well on yer own.
JF
Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick - 24 Jun 2007 06:00 GMT "Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick" <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote in message news:...
>>> > John Forgets. >>> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Remember each delineation mark represents how many days it's been posted, > with you trying to ignore it.
 Signature "I wasn't going to get into any of this until later, but you asked a reasonable question. The problem for me in answering is that I'm theorizing with more intuited logic than facts." -JOF
Popeye/ www.finalprotectivefire.com
Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick - 26 Jun 2007 00:40 GMT "Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick" <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote in message news:...
> "Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick" <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote in > message news:... [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >> Remember each delineation mark represents how many days it's been >> posted, with you trying to ignore it.
 Signature "I wasn't going to get into any of this until later, but you asked a reasonable question. The problem for me in answering is that I'm theorizing with more intuited logic than facts." -JOF
Popeye/ www.finalprotectivefire.com
Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick - 26 Jun 2007 00:42 GMT "Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick" <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote in message news:...
> On Jun 24, 1:02 am, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 192 lines] > Do you think your fleeing from the truth for seven days should qualify, > or would you like to set the mark at ten days?
 Signature "I wasn't going to get into any of this until later, but you asked a reasonable question. The problem for me in answering is that I'm theorizing with more intuited logic than facts." -JOF
Popeye/ www.finalprotectivefire.com
Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick - 26 Jun 2007 00:43 GMT "Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick" <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote in message news:...
> On Jun 24, 9:52 am, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" > <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 288 lines] > > JF
 Signature "I wasn't going to get into any of this until later, but you asked a reasonable question. The problem for me in answering is that I'm theorizing with more intuited logic than facts." -JOF
Popeye/ www.finalprotectivefire.com
Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick - 26 Jun 2007 00:43 GMT "Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick" <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote in message news:...
> On Jun 24, 12:47 am, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" > <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 154 lines] >> with this drivel, while avoiding -any- chance that you'd have to admit >> you're wrong.
 Signature "I wasn't going to get into any of this until later, but you asked a reasonable question. The problem for me in answering is that I'm theorizing with more intuited logic than facts." -JOF
Popeye/ www.finalprotectivefire.com
Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick - 27 Jun 2007 21:55 GMT "Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick" <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote in message news:...
> "Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick" <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote in > message news:... [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >>> Remember each delineation mark represents how many days it's been >>> posted, with you trying to ignore it.
 Signature "I wasn't going to get into any of this until later, but you asked a reasonable question. The problem for me in answering is that I'm theorizing with more intuited logic than facts." -JOF
Popeye/ www.finalprotectivefire.com
Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick - 27 Jun 2007 21:56 GMT "Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick" <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote in message news:...
> "Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick" <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote in > message news:... [quoted text clipped - 204 lines] >> Do you think your fleeing from the truth for seven days should qualify, >> or would you like to set the mark at ten days?
 Signature "I wasn't going to get into any of this until later, but you asked a reasonable question. The problem for me in answering is that I'm theorizing with more intuited logic than facts." -JOF
Popeye/ www.finalprotectivefire.com
Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick - 27 Jun 2007 21:57 GMT "Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick" <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote in message news:...
> "Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick" <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote in > message news:... [quoted text clipped - 292 lines] >> >> JF
 Signature "I wasn't going to get into any of this until later, but you asked a reasonable question. The problem for me in answering is that I'm theorizing with more intuited logic than facts." -JOF
Popeye/ www.finalprotectivefire.com
Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick - 27 Jun 2007 21:57 GMT "Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick" <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote in message news:...
> "Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick" <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote in > message news:... [quoted text clipped - 160 lines] >>> with this drivel, while avoiding -any- chance that you'd have to admit >>> you're wrong.
 Signature "I wasn't going to get into any of this until later, but you asked a reasonable question. The problem for me in answering is that I'm theorizing with more intuited logic than facts." -JOF
Popeye/ www.finalprotectivefire.com
|
|
|