 |
 | 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 / July 2007Trusted Traveler my a.s
I was flying back from the USGP Monday and noticed that they had the Trusted Traveler system in effect. I asked the TSA agent at the station how many people used it. He said that on a busy day in his eight hour shift, less than a hundred. This was at the American/Continental terminal (B?) Now Indy is at the end of a spoke, but I would have thought that there would at least be a few folks traveling home to some place with it in effect, like maybe Chicago. Is it just that people aren't willing to sacrifice liberty for a little security?  Signaturedillon The pen may be mightier than the sword, but I've never seen a .sig beat a Sig. > Is it just that people aren't willing to sacrifice liberty for a > little security? Ask Mossman and Francis. If you can stomach the answer. > > Is it just that people aren't willing to sacrifice liberty for a > > little security? > > Ask Mossman and Francis. > > If you can stomach the answer. Isn't "a little security" the reason you guys give for carrying your guns? Being refused access to certain places is, I suppose, sacrificing liberty. JF > > > Is it just that people aren't willing to sacrifice liberty for a > > > little security? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > guns? Being refused access to certain places is, I suppose, > sacrificing liberty. Not really - the gunowners have a choice - to carry, or not. Similarly, businesses, homeowners, & etc have a choice too. Liberty for all. Its when the government decides to start choosing for you whether or not you can carry, and when, that liberty starts to get sacrificed. Now, please note that the discussion turned to gun thread in three posts. Dennis > Isn't "a little security" the reason you guys give for carrying your > guns? No. > > Isn't "a little security" the reason you guys give for carrying your > > guns? > No. How many times do we have to try to explain the simplest of concepts before this dunce gets it? > > > Isn't "a little security" the reason you guys give for carrying your > > > guns? > > No. > > How many times do we have to try to explain the simplest of concepts before > this dunce gets it? Wasn't it you who asked the question? You can always fall back on a little sophistry about posting an statement to others rather than a question to Mike or me. 8) But back to my question. If you guys don't carry for personal defense, why do you carry at all? JF > > Isn't "a little security" the reason you guys give for carrying your > > guns? > > No. A lot of security? If not for security, why carry at all? A gun only serves one purpose, to launch a potentially lethal metal projectile at very high speed. It's too small to ride on, too fast to watch, and you can't be hunting or target shooting all the time, so what earthly good is a concealed gun if not for personal defense (i.e. security)? This isn't about any of that gun control stuff, I'm honestly curious. JF > > > Isn't "a little security" the reason you guys give for carrying your > > > guns? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > JF Does it matter? Let's assume for a moment that you're right and security is a reason why we argue for carry. By being able to carry, exactly what liberty have we given up? We don't think that security is bad. We think that giving up liberty for security is bad. > > > > Isn't "a little security" the reason you guys give for carrying your > > > > guns? [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > We don't think that security is bad. We think that giving up liberty for > security is bad. My question was to Lee and/or Scott but perhaps you guys have some kind of extrasensory mindlink thang going on. If you indeed speak for them then you're contradicitng yerselves. JF >> > > > Isn't "a little security" the reason you guys give for carrying >> > > > your [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > My question was to Lee and/or Scott but perhaps you guys have some > kind of extrasensory mindlink thang going on. Because he can read Usenet? >If you indeed speak for > them then you're contradicitng yerselves. I'm -sure- <snicker> you'll explain how. > 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 On Jun 22, 5:25 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: > >> "JOF" <jofran...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > I'm -sure- <snicker> you'll explain how. I think <snicker> I just did. JF > On Jun 22, 5:25 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" > <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > JF Check. Were you going to get back to us on that other legion of errors, or, post where you work? It's simply amazing how many messages you can attempt to ignore in one day. Plenty of opportunity for you to prove accusations that you make over, and over, and over. 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 > > > > > Isn't "a little security" the reason you guys give for carrying your > > > > > guns? [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > kind of extrasensory mindlink thang going on. If you indeed speak for > them then you're contradicitng yerselves. No, it wasn't you referenced "you guys" - and since it referred to an action (carrying your guns) it was pretty broad. If you only want tot ask Lee or Scott a question, best use e-mail or, at least, use their names. Remember, JOF, this is a newsgroup. Pretty much anyone who reads a post can reply to it. SignatureDennis "For instance, on planet Earth, man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much - the wheel, New York, wars and so on, while all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were more intelligent than man, for precisely the same reasons." --Douglas Adams, The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, chapter 23. > > > > > Isn't "a little security" the reason you guys give for carrying your > > > > > guns? [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > JF I don't claim to speak for them. Perhaps next time you wish to address a question specifically to one or two people, you should indicate as much in your post. Where's the contradiction? > A lot of security? If not for security, why carry at all? Reread all the times this has been addressed in the past. Your unwillingness to research your own position, inability to understand the concepts you're addressing to the detriment of others and your demonstrated reliance on the unsupported lies of others ensures that it is simply not worth wasting the time to explain it to you again. Do your homework and get back to us . . . or don't. > > A lot of security? If not for security, why carry at all? > > Reread all the times this has been addressed in the past. Your unwillingness > to research your own position, i.e. accept without question the opinions of others whose mindset varies from mine? >inability to understand the concepts you're > addressing to the detriment of others i.e. accept without questioning the opinions etc etc >and your demonstrated reliance on the > unsupported lies of others i.e. not being faced with evidence compelling enough to get me to switch horses > ensures that it is simply not worth wasting the > time to explain it to you again. >Do your homework and get back to us . . . > or don't. okay. JF > > > A lot of security? If not for security, why carry at all? > > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > JF Whoosh! > > > A lot of security? If not for security, why carry at all? > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > i.e. accept without question the opinions of others whose mindset > varies from mine? Yes, since it explains why they're doing what they're doing. > >inability to understand the concepts you're > > addressing to the detriment of others > > i.e. accept without questioning the opinions etc etc Yes, since it explains why they're doing what they're doing. > >and your demonstrated reliance on the > > unsupported lies of others > > i.e. not being faced with evidence compelling enough to get me to > switch horses You don't have to. Don't expect them to switch either. > > ensures that it is simply not worth wasting the > > time to explain it to you again. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > JF >> > A lot of security? If not for security, why carry at all? >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > i.e. accept without question the opinions of others whose mindset > varies from mine? You're asking us now. What will be the difference between the last ten times we told you. >>inability to understand the concepts you're >> addressing to the detriment of others > > i.e. accept without questioning the opinions etc etc Of those who have demonstrated education, experience and commitment to a subject of which you are just f.ck-stupid? Yes. >>and your demonstrated reliance on the >> unsupported lies of others > > i.e. not being faced with evidence compelling enough to get me to > switch horses There is no evidence compelling enough, especially when you are so personally ignorant of the most basic concepts, and so intellectually bankrupt as to be in receivership on the subject. >> ensures that it is simply not worth wasting the >> time to explain it to you again. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > okay. We know not to wait. > 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 > Of those who have demonstrated education, experience and commitment to a > subject of which you are just f.ck-stupid? > Yes. No, sh.t, don't tell him to take our word for it, let him go read something besides Chickenshit socialist handwringing lies; it's lies and ignorance he chooses to embrace and he wears them as well as a $200 pair of faggoty looking pants. Educating himself on the subject would be the adult thing to do. > > Of those who have demonstrated education, experience and commitment to a > > subject of which you are just f.ck-stupid? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Educating himself on the subject would be the adult thing to do. Are you certain I'm killfiled? JF >> > Of those who have demonstrated education, experience and commitment >> > to a [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Are you certain I'm killfiled? By a lot of people, yes. Certain. The amusement factor is yet too high for me, though. 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 > > A lot of security? If not for security, why carry at all? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > time to explain it to you again. Do your homework and get back to us . . . > or don't. It has been said enough times that I am going to say it one more time, just to get him to make a bigger a.s of himself. Many of us Americans carry and own guns because we can. It is a freedom many in the world don't have. A freedom paid for in full. > > > A lot of security? If not for security, why carry at all? > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Many of us Americans carry and own guns because we can. It is a freedom many > in the world don't have. Given the myriad freedoms you enjoy, why is the one to carry a gun the one you choose to exercise most of the time? Carrying a gun is essentially an antisocial act if not being done purely for self- defense, which is, according to recent posts, absolutely not why some of you carry. Is it just a social statement of sorts? > A freedom paid for in full. Who collects that payment? JF > > > > A lot of security? If not for security, why carry at all? > > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > defense, which is, according to recent posts, absolutely not why some > of you carry. Is it just a social statement of sorts? So someone hunting game with a pistol is being antisocial? Someone going to a target shooting competition is being antisocial? Still, lets examine the definitions one by one: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/antisocial 1. unwilling or unable to associate in a normal or friendly way with other people: He's not antisocial, just shy. A person who's carrying a firearm can be as friendly and normal with other folks as they would be without. So that definition doesn't apply. 2. antagonistic, hostile, or unfriendly toward others; menacing; threatening: an antisocial act. A person carrying a firearm is no more menacing, threatening, or hostile than someone without, regardless of why they're carrying. Only if YOU have hostile intent towards the person carrying, or if they're actually threatening you (speech, reaching for the firearm) should you feel threatened 3. opposed or detrimental to social order or the principles on which society is constituted: antisocial behavior. Since the right to keep & bear arms is in the constitution, it is one of the principles on which this society is constituted, so this doesn't apply. 4. Psychiatry. of or pertaining to a pattern of behavior in which social norms and the rights of others are persistently violated. How does, say, my carrying a firearm persistently violate someone else's rights and social norms? Perhaps its an antisocial act in Canada, but not here. Still, given the above why would you think its antisocial? > > A freedom paid for in full. > > Who collects that payment? My guess would be the current citizens? Dennis <chainsaw> Pefect example of him making an a.s of himself again; projecting, putting words in the mouths of others, asking rhetorical questions that even he doesnt believe. He is throwing a sticky bomb of ignorance and social cowardice with the hope it will stick to someone other than himself. > So someone hunting game with a pistol is being antisocial? > Someone going to a target shooting competition is being antisocial? Someone choosing to be responsible for their own safety and that of others is antisocial? > Still, lets examine the definitions one by one: > http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/antisocial [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > My guess would be the current citizens? Every free person on earth, including and especially JOF. > <chainsaw> Popeye hates when you do that. > Pefect example of him making an a.s of himself again; projecting, putting > words in the mouths of others, asking rhetorical questions that even he [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Someone choosing to be responsible for their own safety and that of others > is antisocial? But we've already been told the guns aren't for self defense, and now you're saying they're for safety? > > Still, lets examine the definitions one by one: > >http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/antisocial [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > Every free person on earth, including and especially JOF. Don't you mean reaps the benefits? >> <chainsaw> > > Popeye hates when you do that. You and Yesman Mike from Ottawa are the ones that bray and obfuscate, not me. >> Pefect example of him making an a.s of himself again; projecting, putting >> words in the mouths of others, asking rhetorical questions that even he [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > But we've already been told the guns aren't for self defense, and now > you're saying they're for safety? Nobody told you that. >> > Still, lets examine the definitions one by one: >> >http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/antisocial [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > > Don't you mean reaps the benefits? 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 On Jun 25, 7:34 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: > >> "Dennis (Icarus)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Nobody told you that. You guys should convene an emergency meeting of the Peanut Gallery and get yer stories straight. All this contradicition is gonna have folks wondering if any of you really know what you mean. JF > On Jun 25, 7:34 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" >> Nobody told you that. > > You guys should convene an emergency meeting of the Peanut Gallery and > get yer stories straight. Like the many other ridiculous and fear generated requirements that you would impose, it's not necessary for us to "have our stories straight". As has been proven contradictory to some of your other bogus generalization/accusations, we all hold different opinions in this matter. We're allowed to do that in a free country like the U.S.. >All this contradicition is gonna have folks > wondering if any of you really know what you mean. > > JF Speak for yourself. You could f.ck up the recipe for ice cubes. Once again, you're the one feigning confusion to avoid meaningful debate, and I don't see anyone else braying about lack of understanding. It's old news, Futile. 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 On Jun 25, 11:59 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: > > On Jun 25, 7:34 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" > >> Nobody told you that. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > You could f.ck up the recipe for ice cubes. I do great ice cubes. I learned because of my fondness for Scotch and Gin. I confess to liking my summer drinks on the rocks. JF >> Given the myriad freedoms you enjoy, why is the one to carry a gun the >> one you choose to exercise most of the time? Carrying a gun is >> essentially an antisocial act if not being done purely for self- >> defense, which is, according to recent posts, absolutely not why some >> of you carry. Is it just a social statement of sorts? Ignorance can be cured. Try it, you might be surprised. > So someone hunting game with a pistol is being antisocial? > Someone going to a target shooting competition is being antisocial? Dennis, don't dignify his ignorance with explanations. He's been wrong in everything he's posted on this subject, proven and even taken pride in being and staying ignorant, and continues to spout garbage with absolutely no basis in fact at all. This is simply another case. By the way, just a reminder to you, the rights we choose to exercise most are contained in the first ammendment, not the second. Lee > > Dennis (Icarus) wrote > Ignorance can be cured. Try it, you might be surprised. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > By the way, just a reminder to you, the rights we choose to exercise most > are contained in the first ammendment, not the second. <applause> Now, if you would all just killfile the prick... > >> Given the myriad freedoms you enjoy, why is the one to carry a gun the > >> one you choose to exercise most of the time? Carrying a gun is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Ignorance can be cured. Try it, you might be surprised. I've been trying here for a few years now and with little luck so far. > > So someone hunting game with a pistol is being antisocial? > > Someone going to a target shooting competition is being antisocial? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > By the way, just a reminder to you, the rights we choose to exercise most > are contained in the first ammendment, not the second. Oopsy. But it only applies to progunners and not to us gungrabber types, right? JF >> >> Given the myriad freedoms you enjoy, why is the one to carry a gun the >> >> one you choose to exercise most of the time? Carrying a gun is [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I've been trying here for a few years now and with little luck so far. And we've pretty much lost hope for you, but frankly, you didn't put in much of an effort. Luckily, however, you can serve as an example to others. >> > So someone hunting game with a pistol is being antisocial? >> > Someone going to a target shooting competition is being antisocial? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Oopsy. But it only applies to progunners and not to us gungrabber > types, right? Nobody told you 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 > >> Given the myriad freedoms you enjoy, why is the one to carry a gun the > >> one you choose to exercise most of the time? Carrying a gun is [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > and staying ignorant, and continues to spout garbage with absolutely no > basis in fact at all. This is simply another case. But he's entertained. Regardless of the number of wrecked friendships. > By the way, just a reminder to you, the rights we choose to exercise most > are contained in the first ammendment, not the second. Dennis > But he's entertained. Regardless of the number of wrecked friendships. Please stop quoting him or dignifying his bullshit with a reply. On Jun 25, 2:39 pm, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> wrote: > > > Many of us Americans carry and own guns because we can. It is a freedom > many [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > So someone hunting game with a pistol is being antisocial? > Someone going to a target shooting competition is being antisocial? You knock off the odd little bunny on the way to and from work, or when you go out for dinner? > Still, lets examine the definitions one by one:http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/antisocial > 1. unwilling or unable to associate in a normal or friendly way with [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > Perhaps its an antisocial act in Canada, but not here. > Still, given the above why would you think its antisocial? What do you plan to do with the gun when you leave the house armed if you're not concerned about self defense and you're not going hunting? > > > A freedom paid for in full. > > > Who collects that payment? > > My guess would be the current citizens? In what form? JF > On Jun 25, 2:39 pm, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > You knock off the odd little bunny on the way to and from work, or > when you go out for dinner? I don't hunt, so no. Now, if you would, answer my questions. > > Still, lets examine the definitions one by one:http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/antisocial > > 1. unwilling or unable to associate in a normal or friendly way with [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > What do you plan to do with the gun when you leave the house armed if > you're not concerned about self defense and you're not going hunting? Target shoot. Now, if you would, answer the questions I raised, please. > > > > A freedom paid for in full. > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > In what form? Their continued freedom. Now, if you would please, answer the questions I raised. Dennis On Jun 25, 8:21 pm, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> wrote: > > On Jun 25, 2:39 pm, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 74 lines] > Their continued freedom. Now, if you would please, answer the questions I > raised. So what yer really saying is you don't know why you carry your gun much of the time? JF > On Jun 25, 8:21 pm, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 80 lines] > So what yer really saying is you don't know why you carry your gun > much of the time? Well, in the same way that I'll no longer provide cites until you provide the references I've requested. I'll longer answer your questions until you've answered my questions, above. They were not rhetorical questions. Dennis >> > > > A lot of security? If not for security, why carry at all? >> > [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > Perhaps its an antisocial act in Canada, but not here. > Still, given the above why would you think its antisocial? Sounds like he was using that word wrong. If Futile John would use language he was more comfortable with... :-) >> > A freedom paid for in full. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Dennis 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 That's it. I've had enough. Putting JOF in my kill file didn't stop the trash from flowing through my computer, so I'll try again. This time I'll killfile anything with JOF in the body. My apology in advance to those who I would normally read whose posts I'll miss as a result. Somebody let me know if he ever cares enough to learn something about the subject and maybe I'll give it another shot then. Lee > That's it. I've had enough. Putting JOF in my kill file didn't stop the > trash from flowing through my computer, so I'll try again. This time I'll > killfile anything with JOF in the body. My apology in advance to those who > I would normally read whose posts I'll miss as a result. Encouraging idea. I've actually already done the same. KFed Greg Mossman when he went totally assinine with his posts, and shortly after a few otherwise friendlies temporarily while 90% of the postings are giving wackos a stage. > Somebody let me know if he ever cares enough to learn something about the > subject and maybe I'll give it another shot then. If he wasn't getting so much attention, he might just go away. Been in my KF well over a year, so long I wouldn't even remember him if his ghost wasn't being projected by all the wasted attempts to teach him. > KFed Greg Mossman when he went totally assinine with his posts, and > shortly after a few otherwise friendlies temporarily while 90% of the > postings are giving wackos a stage. Tell you what. Why don't all you radical right-wingers take your political BS to a more appropriate newsgroup and then you won't have to put your blinders on. Meanwhile this newsgroup can get back to normal. Why is a big guy like you so afraid to hear the truth? > Tell you what. Why don't all you radical right-wingers take your > political BS to a more appropriate newsgroup and then you won't have > to put your blinders on. Meanwhile this newsgroup can get back to > normal. For someone that claimed, months ago, that all of this was too much trouble and no longer interesting, I think this is what is referred to as the pot calling the kettle black. Here's an idea, count your off topic posts, then count Magillas and let us know which one it is that's dragging this newsgroup off topic. > Why is a big guy like you so afraid to hear the truth? When are you going to speak some? > > Tell you what. Why don't all you radical right-wingers take your > > political BS to a more appropriate newsgroup and then you won't have [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > count Magillas and let us know which one it is that's dragging this > newsgroup off topic. Once again, I don't start the offtopic threads, I simply finish them. Killfiles are a tool of the scared and weak. I thought Curtis was better than that, but I guess I'll have to lump him in with Scott. >> > Tell you what. Why don't all you radical right-wingers take your >> > political BS to a more appropriate newsgroup and then you won't have [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Once again, I don't start the offtopic threads, I simply finish them. Here's a clue. No pro gunner in this group ever, ever started a thread suggesting that our second amendment rights should be infringed. Here's another. Each and every one of us has said, time and time again that we'll quite when those that would infringe our rights quit. It is you, John, and others like you, who are perpetuating these threads. You want to blame someone, look in the mirror. One more for you. The closest you've come to finishing one of these threads is back when you declined to look at any of the evidence provided for what happens when there's nobody to step up and protect the rights of their fellow citizens, when the police aren't there and the public lacks the means or the will, you know, people like you and John want all of us to emulate. > Killfiles are a tool of the scared and weak. I thought Curtis was > better than that, but I guess I'll have to lump him in with Scott. Sometimes killfiles are for those that no longer think someone's posts are worth reading, when they're so dishonest, ignorant or obnoxious that it's easier not to see them at all sort through them for value that never seems to appear. Like it or not, that's how Curtis has judged you and, frankly, you earned it. Remember, the First Amendment guarantees your right to speak as you please. It does not guarantee that anyone will listen. Lee > >> > Tell you what. Why don't all you radical right-wingers take your > >> > political BS to a more appropriate newsgroup and then you won't have [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Here's a clue. No pro gunner in this group ever, ever started a thread > suggesting that our second amendment rights should be infringed. Who said you did? Seems to me the threads in question always start out as pro-gun or at least anti-anti-gun, and frequently are started by one of the progunners here. Feel free to prove me wrong. > Here's another. Each and every one of us has said, time and time again that > we'll quite when those that would infringe our rights quit. In other words, when you've gotten your way. There's a major concession. >It is you, John, > and others like you, who are perpetuating these threads. You want to blame > someone, look in the mirror. I offered a challenge a while back as to who would start the next gun thread. It took one of you all of about a day to post it. Again, feel free to debunk that. > One more for you. The closest you've come to finishing one of these threads > is back when you declined to look at any of the evidence provided for what [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Sometimes killfiles are for those that no longer think someone's posts are > worth reading, when they're so dishonest, ignorant or obnoxious or aggravatingly right. Has it occurred to any of you that the world as you know and love it is closing in on you, and the day will come when you'll have to retire to the wilds of Idaho or Montana and live in camouflage heaven surrounded by your artillery and a bunch of crazoids with a serious hate on for normal non-violent folk? > that it's > easier not to see them at all sort through them for value that never seems [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Remember, the First Amendment guarantees your right to speak as you please. > It does not guarantee that anyone will listen. You might pass that on to some of the others who think those who disagree with their image of what's right and proper should "Shut up!" or more accurately "Shut the f.ck up!" along with an impressive selection of scatological and anatomically unlikely references. A strange way of supporting the right to free speech now, isn't it, or is that how it is meant to be in your anachronistic world? JF > > Here's a clue. No pro gunner in this group ever, ever started a thread > > suggesting that our second amendment rights should be infringed. > > Who said you did? Seems to me the threads in question always start out > as pro-gun or at least anti-anti-gun, and frequently are started by > one of the progunners here. Feel free to prove me wrong. I've never started an anti-gun thread. You've never started an anti- gun thread. If it weren't for the gun nuts that insist on bringing their guns into practically every rec.scuba thread, there would be no mention of guns here one way or the other. Does Lee think he's fooling himself or just fooling the rest of them? > > Here's another. Each and every one of us has said, time and time again that > > we'll quite when those that would infringe our rights quit. > > In other words, when you've gotten your way. There's a major > concession. What does he possibly mean by this? When he and the other gun nuts can get their way by posting pro-gun threads in a scuba group and meeting absolutely no appropriate response? Why should we sensible divers surrender a diving newsgroup to the gun nuts? > >It is you, John, > > and others like you, who are perpetuating these threads. You want to blame [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > thread. It took one of you all of about a day to post it. Again, feel > free to debunk that. It's the age old question, who came first? The gun nut or the gun nut. Take your pick. > > Sometimes killfiles are for those that no longer think someone's posts are > > worth reading, when they're so dishonest, ignorant or obnoxious [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > in camouflage heaven surrounded by your artillery and a bunch of > crazoids with a serious hate on for normal non-violent folk? Some of them are already there. Doesn't Curtis live in some rural part of Florida, Joe in some rural part of somewhere, and Scott in a really rural part of nowhere? Lee happens to be a anachronism, living partially in civilization, albeit a pretty redneck part. What's hilarious is that they're always the first to point out to the newbies who rightfully complain about all the gun threads that no one is forced to read them, then hide from any dissent with their ridiculous (and usually pretend) killfiles. It's utterly laughable. > > that it's > > easier not to see them at all sort through them for value that never seems > > to appear. Like it or not, that's how Curtis has judged you and, frankly, > > you earned it. Like I would give a sh.t about how an overgrown hairy gasman "judges" me. I care more about how my illegal maid judges me, which is why I hide all the incriminating stuff before she comes over to clean. > You might pass that on to some of the others who think those who > disagree with their image of what's right and proper should "Shut up!" > or more accurately "Shut the f.ck up!" along with an impressive > selection of scatological and anatomically unlikely references. A > strange way of supporting the right to free speech now, isn't it, or > is that how it is meant to be in your anachronistic world? Exactly. Shut up or I'll shoot you. Fortunately these people have an outlet for their pent up frustration here or else they'd obviously join their less fortunate compatriots in shooting up their local workplaces, schools, and churches. For the sake of humanity we really should continue to humor them and not antagonize them into violent acts of desperation. You always have the option to stop. >> > Here's another. Each and every one of us has said, time and time again >> > that >> > we'll quite when those that would infringe our rights quit. >> In other words, when you've gotten your way. There's a major >> concession. Nope. We have our way. It's in the Constitution, remember? In other words when people like you stop trying to get your way at the expense of our rights. > It's the age old question, who came first? The gun nut or the gun > nut. Take your pick. No question about it. The right to keep and bear arms is included in the Constitution of the United States of America. The right existed in this land before there was a United States and it was deliberately and clearly incorporated into the documents that established the country and our culture. We were first, you're the newcomer that wants to change things to suit yourself. No thanks. >> > Sometimes killfiles are for those that no longer think someone's posts >> > are >> > worth reading, when they're so dishonest, ignorant or obnoxious >> or aggravatingly right. Too bad you're not in that group. > Like I would give a sh.t about how an overgrown hairy gasman "judges" > me. I care more about how my illegal maid judges me, which is why I > hide all the incriminating stuff before she comes over to clean. You cared enough to comment on it and you cared enough to comment on it here. > Exactly. Shut up or I'll shoot you. Show me where anyone said that, anyone at all, ever, or admit the lie. > No question about it. The right to keep and bear arms is included in the > Constitution of the United States of America. The right existed in this land > before there was a United States and it was deliberately and clearly > incorporated into the documents that established the country and our > culture. We were first, you're the newcomer that wants to change things to > suit yourself. No thanks. Shonuf. We white folk also had the right to lynch uppity negroes. Of course many of the founders were illegal immigrants, but don't let that stop your fantasizing about the "good old days" when white men wore white wigs. > Show me where anyone said that, anyone at all, ever, or admit the lie. Greg Mossman, June 26, 2007. Now admit you're wrong (as usual). > > No question about it. The right to keep and bear arms is included in the > > Constitution of the United States of America. The right existed in this land [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Greg Mossman, June 26, 2007. Now admit you're wrong (as usual). Oops. Sorry. Shoulda read ahead this morning. 8) JF > Shonuf. We white folk also had the right to lynch uppity negroes. Of > course many of the founders were illegal immigrants, but don't let > that stop your fantasizing about the "good old days" when white men > wore white wigs. I read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I don't recall seeing the right to lynch anybody in there. More bullshit? The founders were not illegal immigrants. They came here in compliance with the laws of the government in power at the time. >> Show me where anyone said that, anyone at all, ever, or admit the lie. > Greg Mossman, June 26, 2007. Now admit you're wrong (as usual). You're right, you did say it. Turn yourself in to the nearest law enforcement officer. You violated the law. Lucky for you, we know you don't have a weapon, or the balls, to follow through on your threat. If we believed otherwise, we would be fully justified in the use of deadly force for self defense. > > Shonuf. We white folk also had the right to lynch uppity negroes. Of > > course many of the founders were illegal immigrants, but don't let [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > The founders were not illegal immigrants. They came here in compliance with > the laws of the government in power at the time. The Indians didn't have good border security either. > >> Show me where anyone said that, anyone at all, ever, or admit the lie. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > through on your threat. If we believed otherwise, we would be fully > justified in the use of deadly force for self defense. Dennis > The Indians didn't have good border security either. Or guns. Look how well that turned out for them. Lee > > The Indians didn't have good border security either. > > Or guns. Look how well that turned out for them. Did they have guns at Little Big Horn? JF >> > The Indians didn't have good border security either. >> >> Or guns. Look how well that turned out for them. > > Did they have guns at Little Big Horn? Yes, having learned that lesson the hard way, and significant other advantages including head-in-the-sand opposition. 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 On Jun 27, 4:24 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: > >> > The Indians didn't have good border security either. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Yes, having learned that lesson the hard way, and significant other > advantages including head-in-the-sand opposition. That just got 'em shot in the arse. JF > > Shonuf. We white folk also had the right to lynch uppity negroes. Of > > course many of the founders were illegal immigrants, but don't let [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I don't recall seeing the > right to lynch anybody in there. More bullshit? I don't recall seeing too many prosecutions for lynchings back then, heck I don't even recall seeing too many prosecutions for slavery, etc. Do you have a cite to any of these prosecutions? > The founders were not illegal immigrants. They came here in compliance with > the laws of the government in power at the time. Injun laws? Cite? > >> Show me where anyone said that, anyone at all, ever, or admit the lie > > Greg Mossman, June 26, 2007. Now admit you're wrong (as usual). > > You're right, you did say it. Turn yourself in to the nearest law > enforcement officer. You violated the law. Aren't you supposed to be some sort of cop? Come and get me. > Lucky for you, we know you don't have a weapon, or the balls, to follow > through on your threat. If we believed otherwise, we would be fully > justified in the use of deadly force for self defense. Cite? > I don't recall seeing too many prosecutions for lynchings back then, > heck I don't even recall seeing too many prosecutions for slavery, > etc. Do you have a cite to any of these prosecutions? Could that possibly be because there weren't any slaves to lynch or owners to prosecute? As far as I know the slaves came after the American Revolution. Perhaps you know better. If there should have been prosecutions, you can blame the lawyers and the British for failing to do so. Us patriots were more than willing. You do know that we're talking about the union stages here, the ones that abolished slavery, right? >> The founders were not illegal immigrants. They came here in compliance >> with >> the laws of the government in power at the time. > Injun laws? Cite? The Indians didn't have jurisdiction over the immigrants, the crown did. The Indians didn't have laws against immigration, they welcomed everyone with open arms, much as you're suggesting we do for the illegals in our country. The Indians didn't have guns, they were sure they didn't need them. Look how well they did following all the policies you think are best. > Aren't you supposed to be some sort of cop? Come and get me. Some sort, not that sort. Besides, I'd have to believe you were a credible threat and I don't, as I already said. >> Lucky for you, we know you don't have a weapon, or the balls, to follow >> through on your threat. If we believed otherwise, we would be fully >> justified in the use of deadly force for self defense. > Cite? It's a legal cite. You're an attorney. Look it up. Lee > Could that possibly be because there weren't any slaves to lynch or owners > to prosecute? As far as I know the slaves came after the American > Revolution. Perhaps you know better. Perhaps I do, as usual. "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons." Who do you think they meant by "all other Persons" as distinguished from "free Persons" and "those bound to Service for a Term of Years"? Have you ever studied U.S. History or are you just making stuff up as you bluster along? >From wikipedia: "The first record of African slavery in Colonial America occurred in 1619. A Dutch ship, its name unrecorded by those present, had captured 20 enslaved Africans in a battle with a Spanish ship bound for the Caribbean. The Dutch ship had been damaged first by the battle and then more severely in a great storm during the late summer when it came ashore at Jamestown. Though the colony was in the middle of a period later known as "The Great Migration" (1618-1623), during which its population grew from 450 to 4,000 residents, extremely high mortality rates from disease, malnutrition, and war with Indians kept the population of able-bodied laborers low.[1] The Dutch ship being in severe need of repairs and supplies and the colonists being in need of able bodied workers, the human cargo was traded for food and services. The white citizens of Jamestown, who had themselves arrived from Britain, decided to treat the first Africans in Virginia as indentured servants. As with European indentured servants, the Africans were freed after a stated period, given the use of land and supplies by their former masters, and at least one, Anthony Johnson, eventually became a landowner on the Eastern Shore and a slave-owner himself. "The transformation from indentured servitude to racial slavery happened gradually. There are no laws regarding slavery early in Virginia's history. However, by 1640, the Virginia courts had sentenced at least one black servant to slavery. In 1654, a court in Northampton County ruled against one John Casor, declaring him property for life. "The Virginia Slave codes of 1705 made clear the status of slaves. During the British colonial period, every colony had slavery. Those in the north were primarily house servants. Early on, slaves in the South worked on farms and plantations growing of indigo, rice, and tobacco; cotton became a major crop after the 1790s. Slaves were used by rich farmers and plantation owners with commercial export operations. Backwoods subsistence farmers seldom owned slaves." > If there should have been prosecutions, you can blame the lawyers and the > British for failing to do so. Us patriots were more than willing. You do > know that we're talking about the union stages here, the ones that abolished > slavery, right? I thought we were talking about the guys who drafted the Second Amendment, i.e. slave owners. Was the Second Amendment not drafted until after the Civil War in Lee's World? > The Indians didn't have jurisdiction over the immigrants, the crown did. The > Indians didn't have laws against immigration, they welcomed everyone with > open arms, much as you're suggesting we do for the illegals in our country. > The Indians didn't have guns, they were sure they didn't need them. Pffthth. I think you watch too many cartoons. > It's a legal cite. You're an attorney. Look it up. It's your claim. Defend it or retract it. > You always have the option to stop. > [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > Show me where anyone said that, anyone at all, ever, or admit the lie. I think it was Greg who said it. I could cite it for you. JF from a "Lee Bell" post >> Like I would give a sh.t about how an overgrown hairy gasman "judges" >> me. Very interesting. So now a personal attack? Maybe Scott had him pegged closer than we did after all. Too bad his momma didn't have one of them third trimester abortions. > from a "Lee Bell" post >> Like I would give a sh.t about how an overgrown hairy gasman "judges" >> me. > Very interesting. So now a personal attack? > Maybe Scott had him pegged closer than we did after all. > Too bad his momma didn't have one of them third trimester abortions. Told ya. Pretty quick here he will tell us all how he makes more money than you do. He gets pissy when people don't think he is a swell fella. Mossman is the consummate punk, bigot, criminal, liar, would-be tyrant. > > from a "Lee Bell" post > >> Like I would give a sh.t about how an overgrown hairy gasman "judges" [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Told ya. Pretty quick here he will tell us all how he makes more money than > you do. I have no idea how much he makes. I'm not the one who claimed an illegal alien working at Denny's can make $60K a year. That was Lee. I've never made more than half a million in any one year, so we're all probably the same in that boat. > Pretty quick here he will tell us all how he makes more money than you do. Maybe, maybe not.......either way, that's not what is important in my life, not to mention I won't see it unless someone is returning fire. > He gets pissy when people don't think he is a swell fella. Kind of appears that way. > Mossman is the consummate punk, bigot, criminal, liar, would-be tyrant. Maybe not quite....... Curtis > from a "Lee Bell" post > > >> Like I would give a sh.t about how an overgrown hairy gasman "judges" > >> me. > > Very interesting. So now a personal attack? I consider it a personal attack when you claim you "killfiled" me. What's more personal than killfiling? But it's hardly an attack to call you overgrown (true, neh?), hairy (true, neh?), or a gasman (that's your job, neh?) so methinks you a bit paranoid if you think you're being "attacked". > Maybe Scott had him pegged closer than we did after all. Sure. But you've met me and I'm a swell guy. You haven't met Scott, and he's scumball. Take you pick, I really don't give a sh.t. > Too bad his momma didn't have one of them third trimester abortions. Which means you're wishing me dead, but you're too much of a pussy to say so directly? Then f.ck you too hairy gasman. Kiss idiot Scott's a.s all you want, you're all moronic redneck scum as far as I'm concerned. That is a personal attack, but only because you started it. > > from a "Lee Bell" post > > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Sure. But you've met me and I'm a swell guy. You haven't met Scott, > and he's scumball. Take you pick, I really don't give a sh.t. I have met Scott, and he's no scumball. I consider him to be a friend. I know you have a different opinion. > > Too bad his momma didn't have one of them third trimester abortions. > > Which means you're wishing me dead, but you're too much of a pussy to > say so directly? Then f.ck you too hairy gasman. Kiss idiot Scott's > a.s all you want, you're all moronic redneck scum as far as I'm > concerned. That is a personal attack, but only because you started it. Am I part of "you're all"? Be careful with those generalizations. Dennis > Am I part of "you're all"? Be careful with those generalizations. I love how easy it is to bait him out to expose his bigotry and hatred, especially when he is getting his a.s pounded by those who sees as lesser beings. > > Am I part of "you're all"? Be careful with those generalizations. > > I love how easy it is to bait him out to expose his bigotry and hatred, > especially when he is getting his a.s pounded by those who sees as lesser > beings. Now you want to pound my a.s? Speak for yourself, I don't think Curtis or Dennis lean that way. Having fun playing with your guns today? On Jun 27, 9:43 pm, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> wrote: > I have met Scott, and he's no scumball. I consider him to be a friend. > I know you have a different opinion. Aren't you the guy that called all those blue blurry pics decent? So much for your opinion. > > Which means you're wishing me dead, but you're too much of a pussy to > > say so directly? Then f.ck you too hairy gasman. Kiss idiot Scott's > > a.s all you want, you're all moronic redneck scum as far as I'm > > concerned. That is a personal attack, but only because you started it. > > Am I part of "you're all"? Be careful with those generalizations. I'll leave out the "scum" part and much of the "moronic" part when referring to you. Sorry. You are a nice guy. You're still a bit of a redneck (can't be helped coming from Alabammer), and IMO not too bright when it comes to metooing the rest of the yeehaw idjits, but that's probably due to something in the water out there. :) > On Jun 27, 9:43 pm, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Aren't you the guy that called all those blue blurry pics decent? So > much for your opinion. "fairly decent". Dechucka understood the meaning. > > > Which means you're wishing me dead, but you're too much of a pussy to > > > say so directly? Then f.ck you too hairy gasman. Kiss idiot Scott's [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > of the yeehaw idjits, but that's probably due to something in the > water out there. :) Dennis > Sure. But you've met me and I'm a swell guy. You haven't met Scott, > and he's scumball. Take you pick, I really don't give a sh.t. Those of us who have met Scott would argue that he is a "swell guy"... Those of us who have met you would argue that you are a bit different in person than your online persona... On Jun 28, 4:46 pm, Grumman-581 <grumman581-rec-sc...@spambob.net> wrote: > > Sure. But you've met me and I'm a swell guy. You haven't met Scott, > > and he's scumball. Take you pick, I really don't give a sh.t. > > Those of us who have met Scott would argue that he is a "swell guy"... > Those of us who have met you would argue that you are a bit different in > person than your online persona... So you'd argue the same for Scott? 8) JF > So you'd argue the same for Scott? 8) I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to imply there... Greg is different in person than his online persona... He claims that he gets a bit redneck when he's been drinking... Or maybe he claimed that it was just when he was around us... I find no significant differences between Scott in real life and when he is online, nor do I have a problem with either... Scott's a bit too liberal, but I try not to hold it too much against him... On Jun 28, 7:43 pm, Grumman-581 <grumman581-rec-sc...@spambob.net> wrote: > > So you'd argue the same for Scott? 8) > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > either... Scott's a bit too liberal, but I try not to hold it too much > against him... I've not met Scott but I've gotten the impression that he's a little easier going in person. Certainly he comes across differently in his emails than online. Probably the same can be said about a lot of us. For example, I had ESG pegged as a crusty old bastard based on his online persona when I first encountered him years ago, Lee is nowhere near as tightly wound in person, Popeye is more like a Carhartt wearing college boy than the Tennessee mountain dweller persona he used to present here, and so on. That's why it's fun to meet any and/ or all of you IRL to see what the real person is like. JF JF > I've not met Scott but I've gotten the impression that he's a little > easier going in person. Certainly he comes across differently in his > emails than online. Oh, I find him pretty easy going online also... > Probably the same can be said about a lot of us. Oh, I tend to think that I'm the same psychotic sociopath in person that I am online... > Lee is nowhere near as tightly wound in person I find him the same in person as online... In neither situation would I consider him tightly wound though... > Popeye is more like a Carhartt wearing college boy than the > Tennessee mountain dweller persona he used to present here I've spoken with Doug on the phone, but our schedules never quite worked out for a meet-and-greet... Closest we ever came was a couple of miles away from each other, but he was on a tight deadline and didn't have the time to drink a few that night... > On Jun 28, 7:43 pm, Grumman-581 <grumman581-rec-sc...@spambob.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > JF I'm much fatter in person than I seem online. > > On Jun 28, 7:43 pm, Grumman-581 <grumman581-rec-sc...@spambob.net> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > I'm much fatter in person than I seem online. 8) JF >> On Jun 28, 7:43 pm, Grumman-581 <grumman581-rec-sc...@spambob.net> >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > I'm much fatter in person than I seem online. Compared to who? :-) 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 > >> On Jun 28, 7:43 pm, Grumman-581 <grumman581-rec-sc...@spambob.net> > >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Compared to who? :-) Compared to me. > Tell you what. Why don't all you radical right-wingers take your > political BS to a more appropriate newsgroup and then you won't have > to put your blinders on. Meanwhile this newsgroup can get back to > normal. Just goes to show you how far you are to the left... Hell, I figure that Curtis, Scott, and Lee are far left enough to be classified as moderates by my standards... On Jun 28, 6:26 am, |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message