 |
 | 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 2007Dear John:
This guy issued more coherence in his last two sentences that Futile John has issued in several years. Hours after fatal shooting, man wounded in gunfire on Winnipeg street Last Updated: Friday, July 13, 2007 | 8:35 AM CT CBC News Another man was shot on Magnus Avenue in Winnipeg on Thursday in the second shooting on the North End street in less than 18 hours. The man was in hospital in critical condition after Winnipeg police were called to the 400 block of Magnus Avenue around 8 p.m. local time. Visibly shaken neighbours gathered on the street after the commotion. Frank Genaille said he was walking in the area when he heard a bang. "I come around the corner and I started running towards the victim laying on the boulevard. I was running to see if I could help maybe comfort the [victim], which I found out later was a young man. "As I got closer, his father told me on the steps there, he said, 'My son just got shot,'" Genaille said. He said he heard the sirens early Thursday morning, when a shooting a block away on the same street claimed the life of a 20-year-old man. Another man was fatally shot while sitting in his vehicle nearby on the same street in March. Violence in the neighbourhood is getting out of control, Genaille said. "I grew up in the city, but when I grew up . it wasn't this bad. Today it's just unreal. "These children are using guns, and where they're getting them, I've no idea. But it has to do with drugs and gangs, poverty."  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 Jul 13, 12:20 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: > "These children are using guns, and where they're getting them, I've no > idea. But it has to do with drugs and gangs, poverty." You're reading far more into those two sentences than a normal rational person might. Do you imagine it supports your contention that everyone should start acting like these children, and arm up? Rather sheeplike behaviour for a bunch of self-lionizing leaders and protectors, doncha think? How is sinking to the punks' level and ratifying their abberrant behaviour with more of the same gonna straighten them out? Of course that wouldn't be nearly as much fun for the violently inclined minority as turning Saturday night into Blazing Guns, The Sequel. Hump away little feller. JF > On Jul 13, 12:20 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" > <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > You're reading far more into those two sentences than a normal > rational person might. An excellent observation, but not about me. I didn't read anything into them at all. > Do you imagine it supports your contention that > everyone should start acting like these children, and arm up? The typical scurrilous innuendo. Neither I, nor anyone, execpt you and Yesman Mike, have ever even mentioned such a thing. It is amazing, though, how you can take something as clear and concise as these two sentences, and simply and immediately spin it into something you can't understand. But we've seen many examples of your "intentional confusion deflection". > Rather sheeplike behaviour for a bunch of self-lionizing leaders and > protectors, doncha think? How is sinking to the punks' level and > ratifying their abberrant behaviour with more of the same gonna > straighten them out? Of course that wouldn't be nearly as much fun for > the violently inclined minority as turning Saturday night into Blazing > Guns, The Sequel. Um, actually, no. The point that was clearly made to the sane, which I have personally stated to you time and again over a period of years (you forget), is that the problem is one of drugs and gangs and poverty. At no time here, or ever, have I ever mentioned arming gang members, or anyone, or even refer directly to guns. But as usual, the very mention of a firearm sent you into the usual blithering, sightless, apoplectic panic. As cleanly evidenced. > Hump away little feller. You've obviously taken care of that. > 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 Jul 13, 12:57 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: > > On Jul 13, 12:20 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" > > <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > I didn't read anything into them at all. Then explain your reference to them. > > Do you imagine it supports your contention that > > everyone should start acting like these children, and arm up? > > The typical scurrilous innuendo. Typical chicken sh.t after the fact evasion that you do so well. > Neither I, nor anyone, execpt you and Yesman Mike, have ever even > mentioned such a thing. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > But we've seen many examples of your "intentional confusion deflection". You continue to coin expressions obviously contrived to confirm your presumed mastery of intellectual swordplay. > > Rather sheeplike behaviour for a bunch of self-lionizing leaders and > > protectors, doncha think? How is sinking to the punks' level and [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > stated to you time and again over a period of years (you forget), is that > the problem is one of drugs and gangs and poverty. And cite me a time I ever disagreed. > At no time here, or ever, have I ever mentioned arming gang members, or > anyone, or even refer directly to guns. No sh.t, Sherlock? > But as usual, the very mention of a firearm sent you into the usual > blithering, sightless, apoplectic panic. Yeah. I'm absolutely frothing here. Of course, I'm also laughing my a.s off at your silly pretentions. Get a life, dude. It's just a newsgroup and a bunch of guys bullshitting. > As cleanly evidenced. > > > Hump away little feller. > > You've obviously taken care of that. The pants are washable. I've had real Schnausers hump them better. There was one Bouvier that worried me a tad, but other than that the Schnausers have been my biggest concern stainwise. You seem to be my biggest problem puppy-humpwise. 8) JF JF > On Jul 13, 12:57 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" > <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Then explain your reference to them. Follow along as I lead you by the hand. "These children are using guns, and where they're getting them, I've no idea. But it has to do with drugs and gangs, poverty." This means that the "gun problem" has to do with drugs and gangs and poverty. Pretty basic. In what may be a celestial extension for a dipshit like you, if you don't cure the gang and drug problem, and the poverty problem, you'll always have the "gun problem". You always infer that the guns created all this. >> > Do you imagine it supports your contention that >> > everyone should start acting like these children, and arm up? >> >> The typical scurrilous innuendo. > > Typical chicken sh.t after the fact evasion that you do so well. That is a lie, and you're a liar. You could prove you're not a liar by offering an example of me advocating the arming of druggie gang members, but, who would bother to expect you to act on it. >> Neither I, nor anyone, execpt you and Yesman Mike, have ever even >> mentioned such a thing. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > You continue to coin expressions obviously contrived to confirm your > presumed mastery of intellectual swordplay. Just simple and accurate descriptions of your continual intellectual cowardice. You are a spineless piece of sh.t. >> > Rather sheeplike behaviour for a bunch of self-lionizing leaders and >> > protectors, doncha think? How is sinking to the punks' level and [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > And cite me a time I ever disagreed. How could you disagree with something you've refused to acknowledge? >> At no time here, or ever, have I ever mentioned arming gang members, or >> anyone, or even refer directly to guns. > > No sh.t, Sherlock? "Do you imagine it supports your contention that everyone should start acting like these children, and arm up?" You're a piece of sh.t liar. >> But as usual, the very mention of a firearm sent you into the usual >> blithering, sightless, apoplectic panic. > > Yeah. I'm absolutely frothing here. Per the norm. Gggg-g-g-uuuuunnnsss!!!!! EEeeeeeK! > Of course, I'm also laughing my > a.s off at your silly pretentions. Get a life, dude. It's just a > newsgroup and a bunch of guys bullshitting. Sure. That's why you're in everyone's killfiles, as a spineless and discredited international buffoon/fuckwit. >> As cleanly evidenced. >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Schnausers have been my biggest concern stainwise. You seem to be my > biggest problem puppy-humpwise. 8) That's a bold claim from Mr. Spellcheck. 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 Jul 13, 7:30 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: > > On Jul 13, 12:57 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" > > <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Pretty basic. Exactly. So how can you screw up any intepretation of it so badly? > In what may be a celestial extension for a dipshit like you, if you don't > cure the gang and drug problem, and the poverty problem, you'll always have > the "gun problem". > > You always infer that the guns created all this. Cite that. I gotta see this. > >> > Do you imagine it supports your contention that > >> > everyone should start acting like these children, and arm up? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > That is a lie, and you're a liar. You have that on Copy & Paste? 8) > You could prove you're not a liar by offering an example of me advocating > the arming of druggie gang members, but, who would bother to expect you to > act on it. Where do you get this stuff from, Alice? > >> Neither I, nor anyone, execpt you and Yesman Mike, have ever even > >> mentioned such a thing. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > You are a spineless piece of sh.t. Don't pull yer punch here. > >> > Rather sheeplike behaviour for a bunch of self-lionizing leaders and > >> > protectors, doncha think? How is sinking to the punks' level and [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > How could you disagree with something you've refused to acknowledge? The depth of yer delusion is truly amazing. > >> At no time here, or ever, have I ever mentioned arming gang members, or > >> anyone, or even refer directly to guns. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > You're a piece of sh.t liar. You need to speak to yer writers about some new and original material. This stuff is getting very very old. > >> But as usual, the very mention of a firearm sent you into the usual > >> blithering, sightless, apoplectic panic. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > EEeeeeeK! That conjures up an image of you standing on tippy toe holding yer skirt by the hem. > > Of course, I'm also laughing my > > a.s off at your silly pretentions. Get a life, dude. It's just a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > That's why you're in everyone's killfiles, as a spineless and discredited > international buffoon/fuckwit. Everybody's. There you go again with that omnipotency problem. > >> As cleanly evidenced. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > That's a bold claim from Mr. Spellcheck. L-a-u-g-h-t-e-r .... did I get it right? 8) JF > On Jul 13, 7:30 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" >> >> >> "These children are using guns, and where they're getting them, >> >> >> I've [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Exactly. So how can you screw up any intepretation of it so badly? You're half right, except I'm not the one who "interpreted" it. >> In what may be a celestial extension for a dipshit like you, if you >> don't [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Cite that. I gotta see this. I'll get right on that. >> >> > Do you imagine it supports your contention that >> >> > everyone should start acting like these children, and arm up? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > You have that on Copy & Paste? 8) No, but but I should, when responding to your posts. >> You could prove you're not a liar by offering an example of me >> advocating [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Where do you get this stuff from, Alice? "Do you imagine it supports your contention that everyone should start acting like these children, and arm up? Rather sheeplike behaviour for a bunch of self-lionizing leaders and protectors, doncha think? How is sinking to the punks' level and ratifying their abberrant behaviour with more of the same gonna straighten them out? "-JOF >> >> Neither I, nor anyone, execpt you and Yesman Mike, have ever even >> >> mentioned such a thing. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Don't pull yer punch here. Just a simple, accurate description. >> >> > Rather sheeplike behaviour for a bunch of self-lionizing leaders and >> >> > protectors, doncha think? How is sinking to the punks' level and [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > The depth of yer delusion is truly amazing. We've cited yours time and again. >> >> At no time here, or ever, have I ever mentioned arming gang members, >> >> or [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > You need to speak to yer writers about some new and original material. > This stuff is getting very very old. If the shoe fits... >> >> But as usual, the very mention of a firearm sent you into the usual >> >> blithering, sightless, apoplectic panic. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > That conjures up an image of you standing on tippy toe holding yer > skirt by the hem. It sure does for one of us. >> > Of course, I'm also laughing my >> > a.s off at your silly pretentions. Get a life, dude. It's just a [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > L-a-u-g-h-t-e-r .... did I get it right? 8) L-i-a-r... Did I? 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 Jul 16, 8:15 am, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: > > On Jul 13, 7:30 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" > >> >> >> "These children are using guns, and where they're getting them, [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > You're half right, except I'm not the one who "interpreted" it. I used the word too loosely. > >> In what may be a celestial extension for a dipshit like you, if you > >> don't [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > I'll get right on that. Likely. > >> >> > Do you imagine it supports your contention that > >> >> > everyone should start acting like these children, and arm up? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > No, but but I should, when responding to your posts. The problem with getting into a rut. > >> You could prove you're not a liar by offering an example of me > >> advocating [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > to the punks' level and ratifying their abberrant behaviour with more of the > same gonna straighten them out? "-JOF You aren't long on reading comprehension, are you? > >> >> Neither I, nor anyone, execpt you and Yesman Mike, have ever even > >> >> mentioned such a thing. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Just a simple, accurate description. Only simple, but that figgers. > >> >> > Rather sheeplike behaviour for a bunch of self-lionizing leaders and > >> >> > protectors, doncha think? How is sinking to the punks' level and [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > We've cited yours time and again. That's what I mean. > >> >> At no time here, or ever, have I ever mentioned arming gang members, > >> >> or [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > If the shoe fits... Along with the wool slax? > >> >> But as usual, the very mention of a firearm sent you into the usual > >> >> blithering, sightless, apoplectic panic. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > It sure does for one of us. I suspect you see nothing wrong with it, but that only makes it more entertaining. > >> > Of course, I'm also laughing my > >> > a.s off at your silly pretentions. Get a life, dude. It's just a [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > L-i-a-r... I'm pretty sure I got it right .... l-a-u-g-h-t-e-r. Look it up. > Did I? Very confusing syntax here. Are you asking me if you lied? Don't you even know anymore? JF "Douglas W. \"Fatboy\" Frederick" <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> sputtered: > Just simple and accurate descriptions of your continual > intellectual cowardice. > > You are a spineless piece of sh.t. Your claim about the Ottawa home invasion demonstrates that you'll lie in an attempt to back up your position. You're nothing more than a mass of hypocricy, Fatboy. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com "Douglas W. \"Fatboy\" Frederick" <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> : > It is amazing, though, how you can take something as clear > and concise as these two sentences, and simply and > immediately spin it into something you can't understand. Douggy uses Karl Rove's method of accusation. Hide what you're doing by accusing the opposition of doing it. Why are you in Iraq, Fatboy? There's plenty of truck driving jobs over there. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > On Jul 13, 12:20 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" > <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > rational person might. Do you imagine it supports your contention that > everyone should start acting like these children, and arm up? Rather Actually, that's not his contention, as I've previously shown. It has been his contention, stated over years, that evryone should have a CHOICE as regards their self-defense options. His contention is that if one chooses to carry a firearm, then they have to be tested. > sheeplike behaviour for a bunch of self-lionizing leaders and > protectors, doncha think? How is sinking to the punks' level and Rather difficult to protect oneself with , say, a baseball bat or golf club if the other person has a firearm. > ratifying their abberrant behaviour with more of the same gonna > straighten them out? Of course that wouldn't be nearly as much fun for Here's where you're confused. A person carrying a firearm is not aberrant behavior. It's what one plans to do with it that counts. Haven't we covered this before? > the violently inclined minority as turning Saturday night into Blazing > Guns, The Sequel. <snip> Dennis On Jul 13, 8:55 pm, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> wrote: > > On Jul 13, 12:20 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" > > <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > His contention is that if one chooses to carry a firearm, then they have to > be tested. Perhaps you can do better than him at explaining his point in posting that piece then. > > sheeplike behaviour for a bunch of self-lionizing leaders and > > protectors, doncha think? How is sinking to the punks' level and > > Rather difficult to protect oneself with , say, a baseball bat or golf club > if the other person has a firearm. That presupposes that everyone we meet will be armed and villainous. Has that been your experience in real life? I may have asked yo before but how many times have you run up against an armed miscreant who threatened your wellbeing? > > ratifying their abberrant behaviour with more of the same gonna > > straighten them out? Of course that wouldn't be nearly as much fun for [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > It's what one plans to do with it that counts. > Haven't we covered this before? Back to my question above. > > the violently inclined minority as turning Saturday night into Blazing > > Guns, The Sequel. JF > On Jul 13, 8:55 pm, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Perhaps you can do better than him at explaining his point in posting > that piece then. I'll be happy to help What part of his explanation gave you trouble? > > > sheeplike behaviour for a bunch of self-lionizing leaders and > > > protectors, doncha think? How is sinking to the punks' level and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > That presupposes that everyone we meet will be armed and villainous. It only presupposes everyone you'll meet is armed if you think that everyone you meet will be armed. I'm pretty sure I said "if the other person has a firearm". However, if you're armed with a firearm, and the other person has a firearm, then you're on equal footing. If you only have baseball bat or golf club, or even unarmed having chosen to rely on Providence then you're at a bit of a disadvantage. > Has that been your experience in real life? I may have asked yo before > but how many times have you run up against an armed miscreant who > threatened your wellbeing? Not since I was a kid. I;m not so foolish, however, to think that simply because I've yet to need a firearm to defend myself or others, that means no one else would either. :) After all, there are several here who have run up against armed miscreants, and I provided a site that prvides accounts of others who have run up against armed miscreats as well. Surely you remember? Now, you have anwers as to my questioning you about why you thought carrying a firearm was "essentially an anti-social" act? Using the dictionary definition I provided earlier? > > > ratifying their abberrant behaviour with more of the same gonna > > > straighten them out? Of course that wouldn't be nearly as much fun for [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Back to my question above. See above. Dennis On Jul 14, 12:25 am, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> wrote: > > On Jul 13, 8:55 pm, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > a firearm was "essentially an anti-social" act? Using the dictionary > definition I provided earlier? It presupposes that one will either encounter violence or intends to create violence. Either is essentially antisocial. > > > > ratifying their abberrant behaviour with more of the same gonna > > > > straighten them out? Of course that wouldn't be nearly as much fun for > > > > Here's where you're confused. A person carrying a firearm is not > aberrant > > > behavior. It sure is in my part of the world unless the carrier is involved in law enforcement or the military. > > > It's what one plans to do with it that counts. > > > Haven't we covered this before? And you still seem to think that what happens in your little corner of the world sets the standard for all the rest of the world. JF > On Jul 14, 12:25 am, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> > wrote: <snip> > > It only presupposes everyone you'll meet is armed if you think that everyone > > you meet will be armed. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > It presupposes that one will either encounter violence or intends to > create violence. Either is essentially antisocial. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/antisocial So those who are ready defend themselves or others from punks are being antisocial? 1. unwilling or unable to associate in a normal or friendly way with other people: He's not antisocial, just shy. Lee, Scott, Popeye, et. al. all seem able to associate in a normal and friendly way with others (in general, there are a couple of exceptions) 2. antagonistic, hostile, or unfriendly toward others; menacing; threatening: an antisocial act. Carrying a firearm, concealed, is clearly not hostile, or antagonistic. 3. opposed or detrimental to social order or the principles on which society is constituted: antisocial behavior. Since the right to keep and bear arms is in the US 2nd amendment, and, as mentioned, being willing to deal with miscreants is clearly one of the principles on which US society is based. 4. Psychiatry. of or pertaining to a pattern of behavior in which social norms and the rights of others are persistently violated. My carrying a weapon does not violate your rights or the rights of others. > > > > > ratifying their abberrant behaviour with more of the same gonna > > > > > straighten them out? Of course that wouldn't be nearly as much fun for [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > It sure is in my part of the world unless the carrier is involved in > law enforcement or the military. So in Canada, crooks only attack law enforcement or the military? That seems to be contradicted by the articles posted by Doug. > > > > Haven't we covered this before? > > And you still seem to think that what happens in your little corner of > the world sets the standard for all the rest of the world. Ahh...so the need to defend onseslf from violence only occurs in my little corner of the world? that's clearly contradicted by the artcles that Popeye's been posting. Dennis On Jul 14, 11:10 am, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> wrote: > > > Now, you have anwers as to my questioning you about why you thought > carrying [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > It presupposes that one will either encounter violence or intends to > > create violence. Either is essentially antisocial. > 3. opposed or detrimental to social order or the principles on which society > is constituted: antisocial behavior. > Since the right to keep and bear arms is in the US 2nd amendment, and, as > mentioned, being willing to deal with miscreants is clearly one of the > principles on which US society is based. At least in the states that allow it. > > > > > > ratifying their abberrant behaviour with more of the same gonna > > > > > > straighten them out? Of course that wouldn't be nearly as much fun [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > So in Canada, crooks only attack law enforcement or the military? > That seems to be contradicted by the articles posted by Doug. Germs don't only attack doctors and nurses here either, but we don't all live in a hospital "just in case". > > > > > Haven't we covered this before? Ad nauseum. > > And you still seem to think that what happens in your little corner of > > the world sets the standard for all the rest of the world. > > Ahh...so the need to defend onseslf from violence only occurs in my little > corner of the world? > that's clearly contradicted by the artcles that Popeye's been posting. That he only comes up with examples, and often rather poor ones, every week or so suggests that occurances like that are uncommon here. I'm having trouble remembering the last time I was aware of a violent episode between two people around here other than the punks hanging around uptown after the bars close and a bootlegger who got shanked by a drunken customer a few years ago. I can remember the odd scuffle in bars from years gone by but nothing that warranted pulling out a weapon of any kind. The last time anything happened involving my home and/or family was about 25 years ago when a couple of guys high on PCP mouthed off at Wendy and a neighbour lady. When I went out to the sidewalk they took off. I found out later they were dusters when the police arrested them elsewhere in town for more trouble they caused. JF > On Jul 14, 11:10 am, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > At least in the states that allow it. Which are increasing nicely. > > > > > > > ratifying their abberrant behaviour with more of the same gonna > > > > > > > straighten them out? Of course that wouldn't be nearly as much fun [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Germs don't only attack doctors and nurses here either, but we don't > all live in a hospital "just in case". I do recall something about national health insurance though. :-) > > > > > > Haven't we covered this before? > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > That he only comes up with examples, and often rather poor ones, every > week or so suggests that occurances like that are uncommon here. I'm One would think that if he's coming up with examples every week...that it'd be fairly common? > having trouble remembering the last time I was aware of a violent > episode between two people around here other than the punks hanging [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > sidewalk they took off. I found out later they were dusters when the > police arrested them elsewhere in town for more trouble they caused. And because you don't need 'em in your little corner of the world, that sets the standard for everyone else? :-) Clearly, others have needed 'em. I've provided links to back this. Dennis > That he only comes up with examples, and often rather poor ones, every > week or so suggests that occurances like that are uncommon here. I'm > having trouble remembering the last time I was aware of a violent > episode between two people around here We've seen numerous examples of your awareness. On Jul 16, 8:18 am, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: > > That he only comes up with examples, and often rather poor ones, every > > week or so suggests that occurances like that are uncommon here. I'm > > having trouble remembering the last time I was aware of a violent > > episode between two people around here > > We've seen numerous examples of your awareness. Gracefully conceded. Thank you. JF |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.