Did I made a mistake with these skis?

[Chris]

Even if the ski season is a few month away, where I live, there is a big
clearance ski sale.

I am an intermediate skier and skis on 166cm K2 XR which I really like.
However, I am tall (6' / 1.83cm) but weight only 158 lbs (72kg), so by
mid-day, I find my skis rather heavy.

So this morning I went to the sale to find a pair which would be lighter.
The salesperson suggested a pair of 170 cm iC160 Lightning. I purchased
them and when I returned home I checked the Internet and found out that
these skis are for women! No purple flowers, no pink stripes.

I can still returned them since the bindings are not installed yet. So my
questions are as follow:

Can I skis with these babies since they are designed for women?

Are any men using them?

And finally, is my manhood in peril? (well, you don't have to answer this
one...)

Seriously, should I return these skis and get something else?

Thanks


Chris in Ottawa

[Alex Heney]

On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 20:12:54 GMT, "Chris" > wrote:

>Even if the ski season is a few month away, where I live, there is a big
>clearance ski sale.
>
>I am an intermediate skier and skis on 166cm K2 XR which I really like.
>However, I am tall (6' / 1.83cm) but weight only 158 lbs (72kg), so by
>mid-day, I find my skis rather heavy.
>
>So this morning I went to the sale to find a pair which would be lighter.
>The salesperson suggested a pair of 170 cm iC160 Lightning. I purchased
>them and when I returned home I checked the Internet and found out that
>these skis are for women! No purple flowers, no pink stripes.
>
>I can still returned them since the bindings are not installed yet. So my
>questions are as follow:
>
>Can I skis with these babies since they are designed for women?
>

Of course.

>Are any men using them?
>

Probably, if they are as light as you are.

Apart from graphics, the only difference in "women's" ski's is that
they are designed for lighter people.

>And finally, is my manhood in peril? (well, you don't have to answer this
>one...)
>

Almost certainly.

Any man who is concerned about whether to use things supposedly aimed
at women is definitely insecure about their manhood :-)

>Seriously, should I return these skis and get something else?
>

I wouldn't, in your position.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Useless Invention: Hand-powered chainsaw.

To reply by email, my address is aDOTjDOTheneyATbtinternetDOTcom

[Mike Yetsko]

"Chris" > wrote in message
.rogers.com...
> Even if the ski season is a few month away, where I live, there is a big
> clearance ski sale.
>
> I am an intermediate skier and skis on 166cm K2 XR which I really like.
> However, I am tall (6' / 1.83cm) but weight only 158 lbs (72kg), so by
> mid-day, I find my skis rather heavy.
>
> So this morning I went to the sale to find a pair which would be lighter.
> The salesperson suggested a pair of 170 cm iC160 Lightning. I purchased
> them and when I returned home I checked the Internet and found out that
> these skis are for women! No purple flowers, no pink stripes.
>
> I can still returned them since the bindings are not installed yet. So my
> questions are as follow:
>
> Can I skis with these babies since they are designed for women?
>
> Are any men using them?
>
> And finally, is my manhood in peril? (well, you don't have to answer this
> one...)
>
> Seriously, should I return these skis and get something else?
>
> Thanks
>
> Chris in Ottawa

Well, there probably wouldn't be an issue, but women's skis are slightly
different. It depends on the manufacture, but I was told that the balance
and flex of women's skis, at least from a few manufacturers like K2 and
Atomic, are slightly different from the men's skis.

Rossignol has a different ski for women. Some of the Cut series come
both with and without the 'L' suffix. Weight is the same, and they LOOK
the same, but they feel different. Although I don't know what the
difference really is.

With K2, they started with a 'T:Nine' which is now a whole SERIES
of skis for women. Prior to last year, I would have thought that the
T:Nine skis were just like you suspect, a bit lighter. And I even felt
that they were for 'intermediate' level skiers. But now with the T:Nine
being a whole series of skis...

Also, consider that you're on a K2 XR series already. Hardly a beginner
ski. Yes, heavy, but I think if you go to any ski that's a step down, you
won't be satisfied.

As to your manhood... Depends on how secure you are. I carry a
LadySmith 9mm... In satin finish with color coordinated grips... (Yes,
I really do. I bought it for the reason that it has safety on only the left
side which makes for a 'flatter carry' under a polo shirt, the fact that it
has a 'tapered frame', which some feel makes for a quicker draw, and
for the color, which is a satin silver with gray grips. Nothing that's a
hard 'black block' which can show as a 'smudge' under a light colored
polo shirt. I still have to deal with the mag plate being black though...
I'm thinking of trying to bleach that. S&W had so many guys buy it
that they began to offer it as the 3913-NS, for 'Non Engraved Smith'.
The LadySmith is the 3913-LS. It got listed on letter as the 3913-MS,
M being after L, but it quickly got referred to as the 'Macho Smith'
and the designation got changed. The only difference was the script
"LadySmith" laser engraved into the slide.)

Anyway, you buy what you want for YOU, not for what others say
is best for them. Back to your skis, I wouldn't worry about them
being 'women's skis' from a graphics or marketing standpoint. I would
find out WHY they are women's skis, and then decide if you want to
keep them. If in fact it is just for 'lighter' skiers, then they may
actually
be appropriate. But if there is any geometry changes, or parameter
changes like flex or stiff points, then you'll have to decide.

But again I come back to the fact that you are on XRs, and you're
going to have to go to a fairly high end aggressive ski to match the feel
you'll get there.

Mike

[InMyTree]

A lady's gun? You Americans are freaking crazy.. it must be great to live
in the land of the free, where you have to consider what gun will "draw
quicker" and fit nicely under your polo..


> As to your manhood... Depends on how secure you are. I carry a
> LadySmith 9mm... In satin finish with color coordinated grips... (Yes,
> I really do. I bought it for the reason that it has safety on only the
left
> side which makes for a 'flatter carry' under a polo shirt, the fact that
it
> has a 'tapered frame', which some feel makes for a quicker draw, and
> for the color, which is a satin silver with gray grips. Nothing that's a
> hard 'black block' which can show as a 'smudge' under a light colored
> polo shirt. I still have to deal with the mag plate being black though...
> I'm thinking of trying to bleach that. S&W had so many guys buy it
> that they began to offer it as the 3913-NS, for 'Non Engraved Smith'.
> The LadySmith is the 3913-LS. It got listed on letter as the 3913-MS,
> M being after L, but it quickly got referred to as the 'Macho Smith'
> and the designation got changed. The only difference was the script
> "LadySmith" laser engraved into the slide.)

[Mike Yetsko]

"Dave Harsant" > wrote in message
...
> Not to mention whether it matches your handbag and lippy.
>

Naw, it just has to match your main clothes.

But you gotta make sure your bullets match your target!

[Mike Yetsko]

"InMyTree" > wrote in message
...
> A lady's gun? You Americans are freaking crazy.. it must be great to live
> in the land of the free, where you have to consider what gun will "draw
> quicker" and fit nicely under your polo..

If you're gonna do it, do it right...

Doesn't make much sense to carry a gun that takes 10 seconds to unsnap
and get it out into use.

And if you carry concealed, it doesn't make much sense to carry a gun
that advertises that it's there.

[skibumone]

Yuppie Jack-Ass---> > wrote in message:
>dude, you really don't want to be wanking around on >stix for chix do ya?
Let me put it this
> way - I'd only ride womens' skis if I was such an


Dude..... If they work for you, that's all that really matters!! Fuk what we
all think!!

I bought my x-snatch some 163 K2 4's back in the day. She only went out
ski'n a few times with me, and suck'd (not in a good way), when she did. So
after she and her shyster lawyer were done sodomizing me, I figured I would
give those purple beaut's a try. They were so light and versatile, I feel in
love with 'em. I was makin kickers and layin down stuff I hadn't in years,
their not great for the heavy crud and sierra cement, but they still rock.
They were short and light, A perfect combo!! I ski on 190 Mod X's but I
still like to give those a go.
It really comes down to why you ski....I guess if the only reason you hang
on the hill is to look good in your Bogner one piece, and suck martini's
while mocking the masses and stand on your Euro-Trash sticks, then I would
take'em back.

But if you like to rip and believe American's can make a world class Ski,
then keep 'em. And don't worry bout a chick's. Most wont be bright enough to
tell the difference, the ones that are wont care.

Tofer


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.500 / Virus Database: 298 - Release Date: 7/10/2003

[Jay Pique]

On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 20:37:27 -0700, "skibumone"
<1skibumatcharterdotnet> wrote:

>
>Yuppie Jack-Ass---> > wrote in message:
>>dude, you really don't want to be wanking around on >stix for chix do ya?
>Let me put it this
>> way - I'd only ride womens' skis if I was such an

>Dude..... If they work for you, that's all that really matters!! Fuk what we
>all think!!

He asked, I answered.

>I bought my x-snatch some 163 K2 4's back in the day. She only went out
>ski'n a few times with me, and suck'd (not in a good way), when she did. So
>after she and her shyster lawyer were done sodomizing me, I figured I would
>give those purple beaut's a try. They were so light and versatile, I feel in
>love with 'em. I was makin kickers and layin down stuff I hadn't in years,
>their not great for the heavy crud and sierra cement, but they still rock.
>They were short and light, A perfect combo!! I ski on 190 Mod X's but I
>still like to give those a go.
>It really comes down to why you ski....I guess if the only reason you hang
>on the hill is to look good in your Bogner one piece, and suck martini's
>while mocking the masses and stand on your Euro-Trash sticks, then I would
>take'em back.

Exactly. K2s clash with Bogner unis - try the gold plated Volants or
something really obscure that you can lie about. Also, martinis are
like totally passe dude. You'd never blend with my posse.

>But if you like to rip and believe American's can make a world class Ski,
>then keep 'em. And don't worry bout a chick's. Most wont be bright enough to
>tell the difference, the ones that are wont care.

Wrong.

JP
*****************************************
Color coordinated. But not *too* color coordinated.

[InMyTree]

> If you're gonna do it, do it right...
>
> Doesn't make much sense to carry a gun that takes 10 seconds to unsnap
> and get it out into use.
>
> And if you carry concealed, it doesn't make much sense to carry a gun
> that advertises that it's there.

And if you feel you need to carry a gun, you either need your head read, or
you need to move..

[Mike Yetsko]

"InMyTree" > wrote in message
...
> > If you're gonna do it, do it right...
> >
> > Doesn't make much sense to carry a gun that takes 10 seconds to unsnap
> > and get it out into use.
> >
> > And if you carry concealed, it doesn't make much sense to carry a gun
> > that advertises that it's there.
>
> And if you feel you need to carry a gun, you either need your head read,
or
> you need to move..
>

I'm glad you can make spot qualifications on people without knowing any
of the facts. I wish I had your talent! In fact, I wish anyone that needs
to carry a gun had your talent! Then as a group we'd probably never have
to ever pull that gun!

But unfortunately, we don't. And you sure don't either!

What is the term... hooplophobe? Sorry you fit the bill!

[www.amogen.com]

Chris,
Just like you I am 6'3" and 70Kg ish!!
Last year I was looking for a new pair of ski's so went to our local indoor
snow slope and tried out a few pairs. I really wanted a pair of Salomon
X-Scream's so I tired out other before borrowing a pair of men's an women's
X-Screams (both 163's). The men's were OK, but the women's for me just
rocked!! I bought a pair that very day and used them all the time last
season. They are the best pair of ski's I have ever had!!
Don't be too worried about them being Women's Ski's. Only people in the
know of what colour women's skis are will ever know, but when they see you
tearing up the trail, they will soon shut their mouths!!
I don't worry what people think of what gear I wear. You shouldn't either!!

[Mike Yetsko]

"www.amogen.com" > wrote in
message ...
> Chris,
> Just like you I am 6'3" and 70Kg ish!!
> Last year I was looking for a new pair of ski's so went to our local
indoor
> snow slope and tried out a few pairs. I really wanted a pair of Salomon
> X-Scream's so I tired out other before borrowing a pair of men's an
women's
> X-Screams (both 163's). The men's were OK, but the women's for me just
> rocked!! I bought a pair that very day and used them all the time last
> season. They are the best pair of ski's I have ever had!!
> Don't be too worried about them being Women's Ski's. Only people in the
> know of what colour women's skis are will ever know, but when they see you
> tearing up the trail, they will soon shut their mouths!!
> I don't worry what people think of what gear I wear. You shouldn't
either!!

It's not always the color. Last year the Rossignol womens skis were only
noticeable by the 'L' after the model number.

Hey, the skis are different. If the difference helps you, then it helps.

[Mike Yetsko]

"InMyTree" > wrote in message
...
> Do you know.. that sounds really logical, but it just isn't the truth..
>
> Watch Bowling for Columbine.. the rest of the world does not have
America's
> problems.. mainly, I'm sure, because it doesn't have your government or
your
> laws..

Ahh... Michael Moore's faked fantasy... I guess some people see it in
a movie and think that it's real.

I know one person that saw the movie Titanic and INSISTED that history
was wrong because 'in the movie they showed it...'

Oh my God!! What about the movie JFK????

[The Real Bev]

Mike Yetsko wrote:

> And I've had a few scary things happen... Once I witnessed a crime on
> my way home. So I stopped and reported it. Then I was put in the
> position of being asked if I would agree to ID the guy. I said sure...

Hey, you don't need a gun to stop crime, just chutzpa. My husband's aunt,
75 years old, 5 feet tall and 80 pounds soaking wet was walking home at
3:00 am from her job in White Plains. She saw a guy bent over in a
doorway trying to pick the lock. Instead of tiptoeing away like a
sensible person she yelled, "Hey, what do you think you're doing?" and the
guy ran away. Dot was a holy terror even when she wasn't angry, and the
only time she wasn't angry was when she was sleeping, which was about 3
hours a day.

Remarkable though she may have been, she didn't (ob)ski.

--
Cheers, Bev
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++
Warning -- Driver carries less than $20 worth of ammunition

[Mike Yetsko]

"The Real Bev" > wrote in message
...
> Mike Yetsko wrote:
>
> > And I've had a few scary things happen... Once I witnessed a crime on
> > my way home. So I stopped and reported it. Then I was put in the
> > position of being asked if I would agree to ID the guy. I said sure...
>
> Hey, you don't need a gun to stop crime, just chutzpa. My husband's aunt,
> 75 years old, 5 feet tall and 80 pounds soaking wet was walking home at
> 3:00 am from her job in White Plains. She saw a guy bent over in a
> doorway trying to pick the lock. Instead of tiptoeing away like a
> sensible person she yelled, "Hey, what do you think you're doing?" and the
> guy ran away. Dot was a holy terror even when she wasn't angry, and the
> only time she wasn't angry was when she was sleeping, which was about 3
> hours a day.
>
> Remarkable though she may have been, she didn't (ob)ski.
>
> Cheers, Bev

Thing is, evil fears the light. You're right, all it takes MOST of the time
is to just shed some light... As to 'barging in', sorry, I'm not John
Wayne. I think that's probably the most frightening image to non-gun
folks too. The casual civilian, barging in, 'coming to the rescue' kind
of thing.

Hey, the gun is for MY protection, not to enforce anything anywhere.
But that does NOT mean I have to stand idly by while something
happens, especially if someone is getting hurt.

Mike

[Chris]

Actually, the skis are off-white with a grey tail. They do not look at all
like women skis (purple flowers and all). The only thing is that they have
the word "Lightning" written on them. So I do not expect that many people
would know what I am skiing on.

My only concern what with having a ski with a balance or flex which would be
unnatural for a men. Head had the bright idea to not "feminize" or
"girlying" the skis by putting flowers or big pink stripes, etc. I bet a
lot of good female skiers would not want to be seen with those skis either!

I agree with a few comments so far. I am not going to have the same
aggressiveness with these skis as with my K2 XR's. But I usually ski from
9:00 till 8:00/9:00 at night since my favourite ski centre has night skiing.
I am quite active and in good shape; I run 5 miles/8 km each day, and add
weight training also. But after 4-5 hours of aggressive skiing, I am usually
a bit tire and, as anybody who skis with XRs will attest, and mistake will
bring you down quickly. (I've got a couple of good wipe-out to prove it).
By mid-afternoon, I am ready to cruise at a slower pace and lighter, longer
skis may help.





"www.amogen.com" > wrote in
message ...
> Chris,
> Just like you I am 6'3" and 70Kg ish!!
> Last year I was looking for a new pair of ski's so went to our local
indoor
> snow slope and tried out a few pairs. I really wanted a pair of Salomon
> X-Scream's so I tired out other before borrowing a pair of men's an
women's
> X-Screams (both 163's). The men's were OK, but the women's for me just
> rocked!! I bought a pair that very day and used them all the time last
> season. They are the best pair of ski's I have ever had!!
> Don't be too worried about them being Women's Ski's. Only people in the
> know of what colour women's skis are will ever know, but when they see you
> tearing up the trail, they will soon shut their mouths!!
> I don't worry what people think of what gear I wear. You shouldn't
either!!
>
>

[MoonMan]

In , Sue typed:
> In message >, MoonMan
> > writes
>
>> you would have to be a very good shot or extremely lucky to kill
>> someone with an olympic .22 target pistol.
>
> You'd just need a bit of imagination. Spose you stood on a bridge
> over the fast lane of the M4 shooting downwards, frinstance?

I thought lumps of concrete where the WMD of choice *<:-(


--
Chris *<:-)

Downhill Good, Uphill BAD!

www.suffolkvikings.org.uk

[pigo]

"CurtisLemay" > wrote in message
news:cGhhdHBoaWw=.de5c99af193872791a2a4b8d2d7ac1fe @1058887325.cotse.net.
...
> Mike Yetsko wrote:
>
> I guess I'm going to have quit carrying my concealed car.
>
> Big Macs don't kill people, people do
> Bath Tubs don't kill people, people do
> Chain Saws don't kill people (I LOVE chain saws), people do
> Dr. Quinn Medicine Woman doesn't kill people, well actually it
> does.

You mean "Dr. Quinn Stinky Medicine Pussy"?

> Ya know, there appears to be a number of idiots that think that
> people are incapable of moderating their own behavior. After you
> ban guns, what's next (I mean if someone who is inclined to
> murder they will just find something else to use). Knives,
> Screwdrivers, Autos, Alcohol, smoking, Pesticides, Window
> washer fluid, antifreeze, food (gotta ban them Oreo cookies).
>
> Fact of the matter is you cannot legislate a sanitized-risk free life
> on this planet (When are you going to ban Volcanoes, Floods,
> Earthquakes, Avalanches and errant asteroids). Actually there is
> even a bigger fact, you are all gonna die - get over it.
>
> Ironically, the people that scream the loudest about gun control are
> frequently advocates of legalizing prohibited substances. I would
> like to see the statistics on drug-overdose related deaths/trauma
> as opposed to fire-arm casualties. Where is the logic in all of this?
> There isn't any. There are enough laws on the frickin books
> already. Prosecute to the fullest extent of the law on any violation.
> People have to and must be held accountable and not treated like
> some errant misbehaving can't think for himself child.

Ban children. Isn't *every* murderer someones child? 'works for me!

[Walt]

The Real Bev wrote:
>
> Walt wrote:

> > * Me, my tapeworm, the King, and virtually all the rabble on this
> > newsgroup support this view, so I'm justified in using the second person
> > plural.
>
> We are not amused. "We" is the first person plural, not the second.

Doh! We knew that .... and we are really embarrased....

--
//-Walt
//
// abjectly failed grammermatician

[AstroPax]

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 17:08:39 +0100, "InMyTree"
> wrote:

>So where should we draw the line?

I know. Let's have a party, a Tea Party, in Boston...and we can talk
about it.

>Thankfully I live in a country where gun's are much more controlled, and I
>don't have to worry about having to defend myself.. even police don't carry
>guns!

That's correct. In the UK, the "real" guns are over-controlled by the
government, so people resort to using the fake ones...and even go so
far as trying to shoot the police with them.

And apparently, those "non-gun-carrying-police" manage to shoot back!

So, if the police don't carry guns, and the citizens don't either, how
and why are people shooting at the police, and how are the police
shooting back?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/2973898.stm

Anyway, I guess UK gun control is no big deal. After all, what good
would a mere handgun do to prevent your typical IRA bombing attack?

-Astro

[InMyTree]

Some police do carry guns but the vast majority don't...

By the way, the IRA situation was solved mostly with words, and listening to
what the attacking side were concerned about.. even including them in
parliment..

I don't see Bush doing any listening to the current terrorists..


> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/2973898.stm
>
> Anyway, I guess UK gun control is no big deal. After all, what good
> would a mere handgun do to prevent your typical IRA bombing attack?
>
> -Astro
>

[Mike Yetsko]

"InMyTree" > wrote in message
...
> You are obviously mising my point.. it is about the principle..
>
> The primary purpose of a Ford Focus is so you can drive from A to B.. the
> primary purpose of a gun is to kill things.. thats why it should be very
> tightly controlled.. anyway.. I'm tired of arguing with right wing redneck
> hicks..

Actually no, the primary purpose of a gun is to hurl a projectile.

Yes, that can be used to kill things, but that's an infinitessimally small
percentage of it's use. More often than not, the use of a gun is to
project power. Properly used to project power, it's use to kill things
becomes unnecessary. But, if need be, it can be used to hurl that
projectile, and even then, firearms carried for defense are NOT
actually designed to kill. HUNTING firearms are designed to kill.
Defensive firearms are designed to stop. Yes, they do kill, but at
less efficiency than if that were their purpose. In fact, handguns
are surprisingly inefficient killing tools... Even when they work
exactly as designed. Couple that with the fact that most people,
unless they practice regularly, can't hit a human sized target under
stress at 25 feet in multiple tries. Most people can't even hit a
lethal size zone at 25 feet when they are NOT under stress without
instruction and care.

In fact, military firearms are designed NOT to kill, at least immediately.
Wounding someone on the battlefield ties up more resources of the
enemy than killing does. And demoralizes an enemy combatant.

Yes, it IS about principle. One principle here is that you have the right
to defend yourself. And most people have the right to select the means
to do so.

Some people, in countries such as 'across the pond', are not only
restricted in the tools they are allowed to use, but cannot actually
even legally perform the task of 'self defense'.

Pity...

But you obviously don't understand any of this, due to your pathological
rants....

Mike

[MoonMan]

In , Mike Yetsko typed:
> "InMyTree" > wrote in message
> ...
>> You are obviously mising my point.. it is about the principle..
>>
>> The primary purpose of a Ford Focus is so you can drive from A to
>> B.. the primary purpose of a gun is to kill things.. thats why it
>> should be very tightly controlled.. anyway.. I'm tired of arguing
>> with right wing redneck hicks..
>
> Actually no, the primary purpose of a gun is to hurl a projectile.
>

the matching primary purpose of a Ford Focus is to move itself

> Yes, that can be used to kill things, but that's an infinitessimally
> small percentage of it's use. More often than not, the use of a gun
> is to project power. Properly used to project power, it's use to
> kill things becomes unnecessary. But, if need be, it can be used to
> hurl that projectile, and even then, firearms carried for defense are
> NOT actually designed to kill. HUNTING firearms are designed to kill.
> Defensive firearms are designed to stop. Yes, they do kill, but at
> less efficiency than if that were their purpose. In fact, handguns
> are surprisingly inefficient killing tools... Even when they work
> exactly as designed. Couple that with the fact that most people,
> unless they practice regularly, can't hit a human sized target under
> stress at 25 feet in multiple tries. Most people can't even hit a
> lethal size zone at 25 feet when they are NOT under stress without
> instruction and care.

It's not surprising that they are ineficient, the ineficiency is a result of
the inaccuracy that is a result of the compromise reqiured to make them
small / concealable. as far as I am concerned one of the most significant
reasons I don't want people to have handguns is how little control they have
over where the bullet goes especially when the user is under stress, which
is I would hope the only time they would consider using it.


>
> In fact, military firearms are designed NOT to kill, at least
> immediately. Wounding someone on the battlefield ties up more
> resources of the enemy than killing does. And demoralizes an enemy
> combatant.

True, someone, I forget who, came up with the idea of using Lasers as a
weapon to blind people, on the theory that 1) they would become
noncombatants and 2) they would require assistance probably for the rest of
thier lives, thus reducing the enemies available personel count by more than
1 for every 1 person injured.



>
> Yes, it IS about principle. One principle here is that you have the
> right to defend yourself. And most people have the right to select
> the means to do so.
>
> Some people, in countries such as 'across the pond', are not only
> restricted in the tools they are allowed to use, but cannot actually
> even legally perform the task of 'self defense'.
>

AFAIK our self defense laws are the same as yours, US Law and UK law are
mostly the same. they are based on "reasonable force" therefore as most
criminals here do not carry guns the use of a gun against them is considered
unreasonable. for example the Martin case where a man shot two burglers with
his shotgun, killing one and injuring the other. He was convicted for
manslaughter for the first (in my opinion reasonable) and is being sued for
damages by the other (unreasonable?).

As I stated before personnally I think guns are an accident waiting to
happen, just by being available there is a chance they will be used and
inocent bystanders are just as likily to be injured as the guilty.

Did the News story about the baby killed by a stray bullet in his pram in a
cafe in Turkey when a man at another table got annoyed, drew his gun and
shot at trh people who where anoying him, reach the US? if he hadn't had a
gun bith the person he meant to shoot in his rage and the Baby would still
be alive!


--
Chris *<:-)

Downhill Good, Uphill BAD!

www.suffolkvikings.org.uk

[Mike Yetsko]

"MoonMan" > wrote in message
...
>
> True, someone, I forget who, came up with the idea of using Lasers as a
> weapon to blind people, on the theory that 1) they would become
> noncombatants and 2) they would require assistance probably for the rest
of
> thier lives, thus reducing the enemies available personel count by more
than
> 1 for every 1 person injured.

Actually, the Soviets did this in the 70's I think. There are a few pilots
out there with 'blind spots' now... All deniable, of course.

> AFAIK our self defense laws are the same as yours, US Law and UK law are
> mostly the same. they are based on "reasonable force" therefore as most
> criminals here do not carry guns the use of a gun against them is
considered
> unreasonable. for example the Martin case where a man shot two burglers
with
> his shotgun, killing one and injuring the other. He was convicted for
> manslaughter for the first (in my opinion reasonable) and is being sued
for
> damages by the other (unreasonable?).

Actually, big difference. British courts have actually ruled recently
that you are liable for depriving someone of their livelihood, even if that
is illegal.

And, you cannot use 'force' for self-defense, as American tourist
have discovered when defending themselves against being rousted in
London by muggers and pickpockets.

Here you have to be careful. If you are responsible for elevating the
level of force as it's put in some communities, you can be in trouble.
In other words, you cannot pull out a firearm because someone is
yelling at you. And you cannot just shoot someone for breaking into
your car. (Although, in PA now, there is legal precedent for telling
someone to vacate your property, and then using lethal force if they
do not do so immediately and with haste.) You generally CAN
protect your property with your being, and if then threatened, you
could be justified in using lethal force to protect yourself. But it's
always a touchy issue. And always remember that 'after the fact' it
will be your word against the word of a person that has ALREADY
shown his lack of respect for the law...

> As I stated before personally I think guns are an accident waiting to
> happen, just by being available there is a chance they will be used and
> inocent bystanders are just as likily to be injured as the guilty.

WAY to many guns are never fired. People buy them, load them, and
put them in a nightstand or a dresser drawer 'for defense' and never
have even fired them. I can't tell you how many 'used guns' I've run
into that have NEVER EVER been fired. Some with wear indications
that they were carried concealed for an extended life. And STILL
never fired! Scary! Even if I had 10 guns, all the same, I'd STILL
fire them. Who knows how each one could work or not-work. When
you need it is a poor time to find out.

> Did the News story about the baby killed by a stray bullet in his pram in
a
> cafe in Turkey when a man at another table got annoyed, drew his gun and
> shot at trh people who where anoying him, reach the US? if he hadn't had a
> gun bith the person he meant to shoot in his rage and the Baby would still
> be alive!

An asshole criminal is STILL an asshole criminal. The guy should not
have had a gun to begin with, and now certainly should be locked up for
a LONG LONG TIME.

Years ago I came within 10 feet of a double murder. 10 feet and a gun
might have led to two high school girls being alive today... (They were
baseball batted by 3 guys. I didn't even know until I got home, and then
realized how close I was.)

[jvwalker51]

On 7/23/03 1:10 PM, in article ,
"MoonMan" > wrote:

> Did the News story about the baby killed by a stray bullet in his pram in a
> cafe in Turkey when a man at another table got annoyed, drew his gun and
> shot at trh people who where anoying him, reach the US? if he hadn't had a
> gun bith the person he meant to shoot in his rage and the Baby would still
> be alive!
>
Did the news story about the old man driving a car accidentally into a
farmer's market reach the UK. He killed 10 people - does it really matter
what their age is?! That's 10-1 (not that events in Turkey are relevant to
the US - after all this thread was started about how dangerous living in the
US is). The ISSUE is whether or not there is a necessity for additional
laws governing firearms in the US (I really don't care about the UK).
Firearms as I said before are tools, nothing more nothing less. If I feel
the need to have one, then it is my right to get one within the current
laws. Where does the intrusion into our freedom stop? If someone gains
unlawful entry into my house while my family is occupying it, I reserve the
right to use deadly force and the law agrees with me. If I break the
current statutes, then I pay the penalty. Additional laws are not going to
stop, slow down or interfere in any way those who are inclined to commit
crimes.

If you want to ban guns in the UK, go for it. It's none of our business.
What happens here is up to us.

[Walt]

jvwalker51 wrote:

> Your absurd example of purchasing an atomic bomb is typical of
> intellectually dishonest dirtbag stupid liberal horse**** in trying to
> control people's lives. Blow it out your ass.

Thank you for this succinct, well-reasoned, dispassionate discourse. I
am sure that you have done much to convert those still undecided to your
point of view.

--
//-Walt
//
//

[jvwalker51]

On 7/23/03 2:39 PM, in article
cGhhdHBoaWw=.01f9f36feb3a9396669600604b8d00cf@1058 985557.cotse.net,
"CurtisLemay" > wrote:

> vinnie the wonder boob wrote:
> I'm glad you aren't missing the point, moron, but the comment was
> directed towards me. You know, you really look like a maniac
> when you go off like that. Ya know, I don't need any help exposing
> assholes like this. Crawl back into your rubber room.
>
I just get fed up with stupid foreign creeps telling us how we should live
our lives when their countries are even more messed up than ours. It all
goes back to when I roomed with a Sikh for a semester in Grad School and he
was always accusing Americans of being horrible racists and then going off
on how he hated Muslims and Pakistanis. It was SO stupid and he couldn't see
the absurdity of it all.

[jvwalker51]

On 7/23/03 2:20 PM, in article ,
"Walt" > wrote:

> jvwalker51 wrote:
>
>> Your absurd example of purchasing an atomic bomb is typical of
>> intellectually dishonest dirtbag stupid liberal horse**** in trying to
>> control people's lives. Blow it out your ass.
>
> Thank you for this succinct, well-reasoned, dispassionate discourse. I
> am sure that you have done much to convert those still undecided to your
> point of view.

And his response does? Right?

[The Real Bev]

InMyTree wrote:
>
> Some police do carry guns but the vast majority don't...
>
> By the way, the IRA situation was solved mostly with words, and listening to
> what the attacking side were concerned about.. even including them in
> parliment..

I don't think that either the IRA or the Brits claimed that their god
wanted them to kill the other side. Hard to deal with people whose god
says you should die.

> I don't see Bush doing any listening to the current terrorists..

Once you've heard "Die, filthy American pig" a couple of times, further
repetitions don't really provide additional information. Or do you mean
that all middle-easterners are terrorists?

> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/2973898.stm
> >
> > Anyway, I guess UK gun control is no big deal. After all, what good
> > would a mere handgun do to prevent your typical IRA bombing attack?

--
Cheers,
Bev
------------------------------------------------------------------
It doesn't matter who you vote for, the government always gets in.

[Alex Heney]

On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 13:30:28 -0400, "Mike Yetsko" >
wrote:

>"MoonMan" > wrote in message
...
>>
>
>> AFAIK our self defense laws are the same as yours, US Law and UK law are
>> mostly the same. they are based on "reasonable force" therefore as most
>> criminals here do not carry guns the use of a gun against them is
>considered
>> unreasonable. for example the Martin case where a man shot two burglers
>with
>> his shotgun, killing one and injuring the other. He was convicted for
>> manslaughter for the first (in my opinion reasonable) and is being sued
>for
>> damages by the other (unreasonable?).
>
>Actually, big difference. British courts have actually ruled recently
>that you are liable for depriving someone of their livelihood, even if that
>is illegal.
>

No they haven't. There is a case currently on the way to court, but
that hasn't yet been decided.

But yes, if you injure somebody by using more force than was
reasonable to defend yourself, then you would be liable for damages,
and so you should be.

>And, you cannot use 'force' for self-defense, as American tourist
>have discovered when defending themselves against being rousted in
>London by muggers and pickpockets.
>

You're simply wrong here. You *can* use force when defending yourself,
but that force *must* be proportional to the perceived threat.

There have even been cases recently where people were killed, but no
prosecution took place.


>Here you have to be careful. If you are responsible for elevating the
>level of force as it's put in some communities, you can be in trouble.
>In other words, you cannot pull out a firearm because someone is
>yelling at you. And you cannot just shoot someone for breaking into
>your car.

Which is pretty well the same as here.

>
>> Did the News story about the baby killed by a stray bullet in his pram in
>a
>> cafe in Turkey when a man at another table got annoyed, drew his gun and
>> shot at trh people who where anoying him, reach the US? if he hadn't had a
>> gun bith the person he meant to shoot in his rage and the Baby would still
>> be alive!
>
>An asshole criminal is STILL an asshole criminal. The guy should not
>have had a gun to begin with, and now certainly should be locked up for
>a LONG LONG TIME.
>

So you obviously agree that there should be restrictions on gun
ownership, sinc\e you say he should not have had a gun to start with.

I think our government overreacted to one person going on a rampage
with a gun, when they banned all handguns completely, even target
pistols used in olympic sport.

But at the same time, I do think that it should be reasonably
difficult to get a license to own a firearm. (BTW, I have a shotgun
license, but only because I own a modern-built matchlock musket for
use in English Civil War re-enactments).



--

Alex Heney, global villager

Budget: A method for going broke methodically.

Please remove NO and SPAM from above
address if replying by email.

[pigo]

"The Real Bev" > wrote in message
...
> InMyTree wrote:
> >
> > I don't see Bush doing any listening to the current terrorists..
>
> Once you've heard "Die, filthy American pig" a couple of times,
further
> repetitions don't really provide additional information. Or do you
mean
> that all middle-easterners are terrorists?

I hate to let facts get in the way of a lie, but:

*** AMERICA WAKE UP! Speech given by US Navy Captain Dan Ouimette, to
the Pensacola Civitan Club Feb 19, 2003. Captain Ouimette is the
Executive Officer of NAS, Pensacola, FL. ***

_____________________________________________

Pensacola Civitan
19 Feb 2003


America WAKE UP!

That's what we think we heard on the 11th of September 2001 and maybe it
was, but I think it should have been "Get Out of Bed!" In fact, I think
the alarm clock has been buzzing since 1979 and we have continued to hit
the snooze button and roll over for a few more minutes of peaceful sleep
since then.

It was a cool fall day in November 1979 in a country going through a
religious and political upheaval when a group of Iranian students
attacked and seized the American Embassy in Tehran. This seizure was an
outright attack on American soil; it was an attack that held the world's
most powerful country hostage and paralyzed a Presidency. The attack on
this sovereign US embassy set the stage for the events to follow for the
next
23 years.

America was still reeling from the aftermath of the Viet Nam experience
and had a serious threat from the Soviet Union when then, President
Carter, had to do something. He chose to conduct a clandestine raid in
the desert. The ill-fated mission ended in ruin, but stood as a symbol
of America's inability to deal with terrorism. America's military had
been decimated and downsized / right sized since the end of the Viet Nam
war. A poorly trained, poorly equipped and poorly organized military was
called on to execute a complex mission that was doomed from the start.

Shortly after the Tehran experience, Americans began to be kidnapped and
killed throughout the Middle East. America could do little to protect
her citizens living and working abroad. The attacks against US soil
continued.

In April of 1983 a large vehicle packed with high explosives was driven
into the US Embassy compound in Beirut. When it explodes, it kills 63
people. The alarm went off again and America hit the Snooze Button once
more. Then just six short months later a large truck heavily laden down
with over
2500 pounds of TNT smashed through the main gate of the US Marine Corps
headquarters in Beirut. 241 US servicemen are killed. America mourns her
dead and hit the Snooze Button once more. Two months later in December
1983, another truck loaded with explosives is driven into the US Embassy
in Kuwait, and America continues her slumber. The following year, in
September 1984, another van was driven into the gates of the US Embassy
in Beirut and America slept.

Soon the terrorism spreads to Europe. In April 1985 a bomb explodes in a
restaurant frequented by US soldiers in Madrid. Then in August a
Volkswagen loaded with explosives is driven into the main gate of the US
Air Force Base at Rhein-Main, 22 are killed and the Snooze Alarm is
buzzing louder and louder as US soil is continually attacked. Fifty-nine
days later a cruise ship, the Achille Lauro is hijacked and we watched
as an American in a wheelchair is singled out of the passenger list and
executed. The terrorists then shift their tactics to bombing civilian
airliners when they bomb TWA Flight 840 in April of 1986 that killed 4
and the most tragic bombing, Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland
in 1988, killing 259. America wants to treat these terrorist acts as
crimes; in fact we are still trying to bring these people to trial.
These are acts of war...the Wake Up alarm is louder and louder.

The terrorists decide to bring the fight to America. In January 1993,
two CIA agents are shot and killed as they enter CIA headquarters in
Langley, Virginia. The following month, February 1993, a group of
terrorists are arrested after a rented van packed with explosives is
driven into the underground parking garage of the World Trade Center in
New York City. Six people are killed and over 1000 are injured. Still
this is a crime and not an act of war? The Snooze alarm is depressed
again.

Then in November 1995 a car bomb explodes at a US military complex in
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia killing seven service men and women. A few months
later in June of 1996, another truck bomb explodes only 35 yards from
the US military compound in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. It destroys the
Khobar Towers, a US Air Force barracks, killing 19 and injuring over
500.

The terrorists are getting braver and smarter as they see that America
does not respond decisively. They move to coordinate their attacks in a
simultaneous attack on two US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. These
attacks were planned with precision, they kill 224. America responds
with cruise missile attacks and goes back to sleep.

The USS Cole was docked in the port of Aden, Yemen for refueling on 12
October 2000, when a small craft pulled along side the ship and exploded
killing 17 US Navy Sailors. Attacking a US War Ship is an act of war,
but we sent the FBI to investigate the crime and went back to sleep.

And of course you know the events of 11 September 2001. Most Americans
think this was the first attack against US soil or in America. How wrong
they are. America has been under a constant attack since 1979 and we
chose to hit the snooze alarm and roll over and go back to sleep.

In the news lately we have seen lots of finger pointing from every high
official in government over what they knew and what they didn't know.
But if you've read the papers and paid a little attention I think you
can see exactly what they knew. You don't have to be in the FBI or CIA
or on the National Security Council to see the pattern that has been
developing since
1979. The President is right on when he says we are engaged in a war. I
think we have been in a war for the past 23 years and it will continue
until we as a people decide enough is enough.

America has to "Get out of Bed" and act decisively now. America has
changed forever. We have to be ready to pay the price and make the
sacrifice to ensure our way of life continues. We cannot afford to hit
the Snooze Button again and roll over and go back to sleep. We have to
make the terrorists know that in the words of Admiral Yamamoto after the
attack on Pearl Harbor "that all they have done is to awaken a sleeping
giant."

Thank you very much.

Dan Ouimette

[Mike Yetsko]

"Alex Heney" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 13:30:28 -0400, "Mike Yetsko" >
> wrote:
>
> >"MoonMan" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >
> >> AFAIK our self defense laws are the same as yours, US Law and UK law
are
> >> mostly the same. they are based on "reasonable force" therefore as most
> >> criminals here do not carry guns the use of a gun against them is
> >considered
> >> unreasonable. for example the Martin case where a man shot two burglers
> >with
> >> his shotgun, killing one and injuring the other. He was convicted for
> >> manslaughter for the first (in my opinion reasonable) and is being sued
> >for
> >> damages by the other (unreasonable?).
> >
> >Actually, big difference. British courts have actually ruled recently
> >that you are liable for depriving someone of their livelihood, even if
that
> >is illegal.
>
> No they haven't. There is a case currently on the way to court, but
> that hasn't yet been decided.

I'll have to find the reference, but if I remember right, it was some lower
court that actually ruled on this. Maybe it's now under appeal and
making it's way to a higher court.

> But yes, if you injure somebody by using more force than was
> reasonable to defend yourself, then you would be liable for damages,
> and so you should be.

Bull. Plain and simple. Once someone crosses the line to do bodily
damage to me or my family, then any action I take to protect myself
is justified. However, that does NOT mean I can put up a defense
and then continue after the threat is gone. If someone is coming at
me, for example, with intent to serious harm me, and I have to resort
to lethal force, and then, regardless of why, the threat is no longer there,
any continued use of lethal force is not justified. Someone comes at
me with a knife. I pull a gun. He continues. I fire. He's wounded,
turns to leave, or even just falls down. If I continue to fire, then I've
crossed a line. A BIG line.

> >And, you cannot use 'force' for self-defense, as American tourist
> >have discovered when defending themselves against being rousted in
> >London by muggers and pickpockets.
>
> You're simply wrong here. You *can* use force when defending yourself,
> but that force *must* be proportional to the perceived threat.
>
> There have even been cases recently where people were killed, but no
> prosecution took place.

But they HAVE taken place. The HAVE taken place for just defense.
We're not talking about the majority of cases here. This is the kind of
BS that only has to happen ONCE and it is now precedent.

> >> Did the News story about the baby killed by a stray bullet in his pram
in
> >a
> >> cafe in Turkey when a man at another table got annoyed, drew his gun
and
> >> shot at trh people who where anoying him, reach the US? if he hadn't
had a
> >> gun bith the person he meant to shoot in his rage and the Baby would
still
> >> be alive!
> >
> >An asshole criminal is STILL an asshole criminal. The guy should not
> >have had a gun to begin with, and now certainly should be locked up for
> >a LONG LONG TIME.
>
> So you obviously agree that there should be restrictions on gun
> ownership, sinc\e you say he should not have had a gun to start with.

BIG difference here though. In my case, I feel that certain people have
shown by their behavior they should have their RIGHT taken away.
Otherwise it remains a RIGHT of the individual. The other side of
the pond you have NO right to a firearm.

> I think our government overreacted to one person going on a rampage
> with a gun, when they banned all handguns completely, even target
> pistols used in olympic sport.

Here I totally agree!

> But at the same time, I do think that it should be reasonably
> difficult to get a license to own a firearm. (BTW, I have a shotgun
> license, but only because I own a modern-built matchlock musket for
> use in English Civil War re-enactments).

Why should it be difficult to get a license if it's a right? But again,
it's
NOT a right in some areas! Here I do have to adhere to certain
licensing schemes and requirements, but after that...

No, I do not have any re-enactment firearms, although I DO have a
few antiques. Some over 100 years old, that I still fire. In fact, my
oldest is from the late 1800's, a Winchester model of 1892 in .25-20,
complete with flip up sites and saddle ring. It sits in my safe right next
to my AR-15...

BOTH are incredibly fun to shoot. For totally different reasons.

[pigo]

"Mike Yetsko" > wrote in message
...
(snipped)

> any continued use of lethal force is not justified. Someone comes at
> me with a knife. I pull a gun. He continues. I fire. He's wounded,
> turns to leave, or even just falls down.

Isn't that when his neck breaks "in the fall"?

[Mike Yetsko]

> The Black bears think they are taking home some large
> nylon covered hot dog. (They can't see well in the daytime, so it is
> pretty awful at night, so they just follow their nose at night)

Reminds me of a cartoon I saw years ago. Two polar bears at an igloo
that had the top smashed. One was saying to the other something about
them being frosty on the outside, but warm red crunchy stuff on the
inside....

> The only reason one should carry a handgun in the backcountry, is use
> it against the true enemies, Chipmunks and Deer Flies. Chipmunks will
> leave you alone when they see one of cousins being vaporized by .40
> handgun.

Actually, and this is really unfortunate part, you need the weapon for
the 2-legged critters. There's an undesirable element out there now
that is out of control. It seems to be especially prevalent where
wilderness trails come close to civilization.

I PERSONALLY know of one case where 2 girls were hiking locally,
and they passed 2 guys who didn't seem to 'fit' in the woods. They
observed the guys staring at them as walked out of sight. Once out of
sight, the girls got off the trail to a place where they could observe it
easily. In a few minutes, the 2 guys they passed came running up the
trail. What made it ominous is they both now carried big sticks. Not
as walking sticks... (Would have been a real issue, as the one girl I
know had a small Walther easy to get at in her pack...)

Now, how do you even begin to report that?

Mike

[Alex Heney]

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 13:05:59 -0400, Dave Stallard >
wrote:

>Alex Heney wrote:
>
>> But at the same time, I do think that it should be reasonably
>> difficult to get a license to own a firearm. (BTW, I have a shotgun
>> license, but only because I own a modern-built matchlock musket for
>> use in English Civil War re-enactments).
>
>Which side are you on? ;)
>

Royalist, although more by accident than design.

Most people in the Sealed Knot don't have any strong feelings about
which side they are on, they just join the regiment of whoever
introduced them. But if you do have strong feelings either way, you
can change.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
How do you pronounce my name? With reverence.

To reply by email, my address is aDOTjDOTheneyATbtinternetDOTcom

[Alex Heney]

On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 20:54:22 -0400, "Mike Yetsko" >
wrote:

>"Alex Heney" > wrote in message
...
>> On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 13:30:28 -0400, "Mike Yetsko" >
>> wrote:
>>
<snip>
>
>> But yes, if you injure somebody by using more force than was
>> reasonable to defend yourself, then you would be liable for damages,
>> and so you should be.
>
>Bull. Plain and simple. Once someone crosses the line to do bodily
>damage to me or my family, then any action I take to protect myself
>is justified.

I suspect you would find that not to be the case, even in the US. If
somebody were coming at you with fists, and you had the time to either
pick up a gun or a baseball bat to defend yourself, you would probably
find yourself in big trouble if you chose the gun.

If he had a knife, then it would be less clear cut. And if he had a
gun, you could definitely use yours. If he had a knife, and the only
weapon you had apart from bare hands was a gun, you should have the
right to use it.

You have (and should have) the right to defend yourself. But the force
used in defence must be in proportion to the threat against you. It is
not right to be able to kill someone who would only inflict bruises on
you.

>However, that does NOT mean I can put up a defense
>and then continue after the threat is gone. If someone is coming at
>me, for example, with intent to serious harm me, and I have to resort
>to lethal force, and then, regardless of why, the threat is no longer there,
>any continued use of lethal force is not justified. Someone comes at
>me with a knife. I pull a gun. He continues. I fire. He's wounded,
>turns to leave, or even just falls down. If I continue to fire, then I've
>crossed a line. A BIG line.
>

I think you are more or less agreeing with me here, although you seem
to be saying that *any* level of force is justified until the threat
has been removed..


>> >And, you cannot use 'force' for self-defense, as American tourist
>> >have discovered when defending themselves against being rousted in
>> >London by muggers and pickpockets.
>>
>> You're simply wrong here. You *can* use force when defending yourself,
>> but that force *must* be proportional to the perceived threat.
>>
>> There have even been cases recently where people were killed, but no
>> prosecution took place.
>
>But they HAVE taken place. The HAVE taken place for just defense.
>We're not talking about the majority of cases here. This is the kind of
>BS that only has to happen ONCE and it is now precedent.
>

Not true. Each case only forms a precedent for other very similar
cases, and statute law overrides precedent.

So far as the law is concerned in this country, you are allowed to use
"reasonable" force to defend yourself. That does not extend to
defending your property, although many think it should.

The cases where successful prosecutions have taken place have been
where the courts decided the force used was out of proportion to the
threat.


<snip>
>> >
>> >An asshole criminal is STILL an asshole criminal. The guy should not
>> >have had a gun to begin with, and now certainly should be locked up for
>> >a LONG LONG TIME.
>>
>> So you obviously agree that there should be restrictions on gun
>> ownership, sinc\e you say he should not have had a gun to start with.
>
>BIG difference here though. In my case, I feel that certain people have
>shown by their behavior they should have their RIGHT taken away.
>Otherwise it remains a RIGHT of the individual. The other side of
>the pond you have NO right to a firearm.
>

Agreed. And we probably both think our way is right :-)

You feel that people should be allowed guns unless they show behaviour
which means they should be taken away, while I feel that people should
be able to show good character before being allowed guns.

Just a different viewpoint. Different culture.


--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
How do you pronounce my name? With reverence.

To reply by email, my address is aDOTjDOTheneyATbtinternetDOTcom

[Alex Heney]

On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 17:44:46 -0600, "pigo"
> wrote:

>
>"The Real Bev" > wrote in message
...
>> InMyTree wrote:
>> >
>> > I don't see Bush doing any listening to the current terrorists..
>>
>> Once you've heard "Die, filthy American pig" a couple of times,
>further
>> repetitions don't really provide additional information. Or do you
>mean
>> that all middle-easterners are terrorists?
>
>I hate to let facts get in the way of a lie, but:
>
<snip>

Just what "lie" do you think those facts might have "got in the way
of"?

Nothing in what you posted in any way contradicted what has been said
above.

--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
How do you pronounce my name? With reverence.

To reply by email, my address is aDOTjDOTheneyATbtinternetDOTcom

[AstroPax]

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 15:31:22 GMT, Ted Waldron >
wrote:

>If you are in Grizzly Bear country, (AK,Eastern WA, ID
>Panhandle,MT,WY in the US, BC,YK, AB in Canada) a .40 handgun is not
>going to stop a charging Grizzly Bear,that weighs over 600lbs/275kgs
>that can reach speeds over 30mph/50kph.

These two dudes were up around the arctic circle several years ago,
and for a few days were being followed by a big polar bear.

Finally, the bear decided it was lunch time. They shot and killed it
with a .44.

Anyway, I have other reasons for carrying a concealed weapon while
backpacking. Seriously though, wildlife is the least of my worries.

I'm more concerned with the environmental kook extremists that won't
hesitate to de-boot you, forcing you to walk out of the wilderness
barefoot just because they don't like the soles/tread design of your
hiking boots.

-Astro

[The Real Bev]

AstroPax wrote:
>
> On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 15:31:22 GMT, Ted Waldron >
> wrote:
>
> >If you are in Grizzly Bear country, (AK,Eastern WA, ID
> >Panhandle,MT,WY in the US, BC,YK, AB in Canada) a .40 handgun is not
> >going to stop a charging Grizzly Bear,that weighs over 600lbs/275kgs
> >that can reach speeds over 30mph/50kph.
>
> These two dudes were up around the arctic circle several years ago,
> and for a few days were being followed by a big polar bear.
>
> Finally, the bear decided it was lunch time. They shot and killed it
> with a .44.
>
> Anyway, I have other reasons for carrying a concealed weapon while
> backpacking. Seriously though, wildlife is the least of my worries.
>
> I'm more concerned with the environmental kook extremists that won't
> hesitate to de-boot you, forcing you to walk out of the wilderness
> barefoot just because they don't like the soles/tread design of your
> hiking boots.

*******s won't even spring for a lousy pair of Forest Slippers(tm). Kill
'em all.

--
Cheers,
Bev
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"We need to cut more slack for the stupid; after all, somebody has
to populate the lower part of the bell curve." -- Dennis (evil)

[InMyTree]

Give me a break.. guns aren't meant to kill.. you truly are insane..

"Mike Yetsko" > wrote in message
...
> "InMyTree" > wrote in message
> ...
> > You are obviously mising my point.. it is about the principle..
> >
> > The primary purpose of a Ford Focus is so you can drive from A to B..
the
> > primary purpose of a gun is to kill things.. thats why it should be very
> > tightly controlled.. anyway.. I'm tired of arguing with right wing
redneck
> > hicks..
>
> Actually no, the primary purpose of a gun is to hurl a projectile.
>
> Yes, that can be used to kill things, but that's an infinitessimally small
> percentage of it's use. More often than not, the use of a gun is to
> project power. Properly used to project power, it's use to kill things
> becomes unnecessary. But, if need be, it can be used to hurl that
> projectile, and even then, firearms carried for defense are NOT
> actually designed to kill. HUNTING firearms are designed to kill.
> Defensive firearms are designed to stop. Yes, they do kill, but at
> less efficiency than if that were their purpose. In fact, handguns
> are surprisingly inefficient killing tools... Even when they work
> exactly as designed. Couple that with the fact that most people,
> unless they practice regularly, can't hit a human sized target under
> stress at 25 feet in multiple tries. Most people can't even hit a
> lethal size zone at 25 feet when they are NOT under stress without
> instruction and care.
>
> In fact, military firearms are designed NOT to kill, at least immediately.
> Wounding someone on the battlefield ties up more resources of the
> enemy than killing does. And demoralizes an enemy combatant.
>
> Yes, it IS about principle. One principle here is that you have the right
> to defend yourself. And most people have the right to select the means
> to do so.
>
> Some people, in countries such as 'across the pond', are not only
> restricted in the tools they are allowed to use, but cannot actually
> even legally perform the task of 'self defense'.
>
> Pity...
>
> But you obviously don't understand any of this, due to your pathological
> rants....
>
> Mike
>
>
>

[InMyTree]

> 1.) Gasoline - how many arson fires are started with this.

Primary use - for combustion engines..

> 2.) Box Cutter Knives - 9-11 Hijackings - need I say more.

Primary use - well, cutting boxes

> 3.) Fuel Oil - can make bombs

Primary use - making light

> 4.) Fertilizer - combined with Fuel Oil to make bombs

Primary use - making things grow better
>
> You want more, dumb****?
>

Guns: Primary use - to kill things..

[Sue]

In message >, InMyTree
> writes
>Some police do carry guns but the vast majority don't...
>
They'd collapse under the extra weight, if you added a gun to all the
other rammel they have hung on their Bat Utility Belts. And why do they
walk around inside the police station with all that stuff? They can't
even sit down comfortably!
--
Sue ]8(:)

[Vern93]

In article >,
AstroPax > wrote:

> I'm more concerned with the environmental kook extremists that won't
> hesitate to de-boot you, forcing you to walk out of the wilderness
> barefoot just because they don't like the soles/tread design of your
> hiking boots.

Are you serious? Do people actually do this?

Dave

[The Real Bev]

Vern93 wrote:
>
> In article >,
> AstroPax > wrote:
>
> > I'm more concerned with the environmental kook extremists that won't
> > hesitate to de-boot you, forcing you to walk out of the wilderness
> > barefoot just because they don't like the soles/tread design of your
> > hiking boots.
>
> Are you serious? Do people actually do this?

And live to tell the tale? I seriously doubt it!

--
Cheers,
Bev
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx
"If anyone disagrees with anything I say, I am quite prepared
not only to retract it, but also to deny under oath that I
ever said it." -- T. Lehrer

[MoonMan]

In , Sue typed:
> In message >, MoonMan
> > writes
>> In , Sue typed:
>>> In message >, MoonMan
>>> > writes
>>>
>>>> you would have to be a very good shot or extremely lucky to kill
>>>> someone with an olympic .22 target pistol.
>>>
>>> You'd just need a bit of imagination. Spose you stood on a bridge
>>> over the fast lane of the M4 shooting downwards, frinstance?
>>
>> I thought lumps of concrete where the WMD of choice *<:-(
>>
> If you dropped them through the roof of a double-decker, maybe.
>
> The delicate old-style approach is to use wheel nuts, wait for a car
> that's doing 130mph and try to have the driver impact your missile -
> the effect's the same as if you fired the nut at 130mph into a
> stationary Royal or cabinet minister (nobody else dares do 130 on the
> M4 nowadays).

I don't think its possible to do 130 on the M4, too many slow lorrys, or are
you thinking of in the wilds of Wales?



--
Chris *<:-)

Downhill Good, Uphill BAD!

www.suffolkvikings.org.uk

[Mike Yetsko]

"BrritSki" > wrote in message
...
> The farmer (Tony Martin) interrupted a burglary. In the dark he
> discharged his (illegally held) pump action shotgun. One of the burglars
> was killed, the other was wounded. The wounded one IS suing him (not
> trying).

I saw something in the legal circles a few weeks ago about this. Seems
some local magistrate (judge?) or however the system is set up there,
made a ruling that basically says the burgler is entitled to his profession
(burglary) and the suit can proceed against the farmer for denying him
his livelyhood.

Now, that is not a 'national' policy, and the case can still be determined
to have no merit, or the farmer could be found not liable.

Or the farmer could loose everything.

Only in England....

No, sorry, you didn't deserve that. You haven't heard some of the
bizarre stuff to come out of California!

[pigo]

"InMyTree" > wrote in message
...
> Actually Alex, I was watching a show on the BBC about this.. it was in
> relation to a farmer here who shot an intruder (not killed, just
injured)
> and went to jail over it.. and now the criminal is trying to sue him!
>
> Do you know it is legal in Texas (are we surprised), if someone is
stealing
> property from your home, you are able to do anything in your power to
stop
> them.. so you see someone running from your house with your TV.. you
are
> quite within your rights to shoot them dead!

Just as it should be! And there are still stupid mother****ers out there
that would rather steal your tv than get a job. They deserve what they
get.

[BrritSki]

Mike Yetsko wrote:
>
I wasn't commenting about the merits or otherwise of the case, whether
it was national policay or not, only pointing out that InMyTree had got
his facts wrong.

[Sue]

In message >, MoonMan
> writes
>
>I don't think its possible to do 130 on the M4, too many slow lorrys, or are
>you thinking of in the wilds of Wales?
>
You can't do that in Wales, it's only two lanes and anyway they ask you
not to.

But you can on a weekday evening after about nine o'clock, most places
outside the London speed limit. The main objection is, apparently if
they catch you at more than 100 you get banned straight away.

What's happened to the tiny threadlet about skiing that used to exist
here? Has it melted like the Alpine glaciers?
--
Sue ];(:)

[AstroPax]

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 07:50:11 -0600, "pigo"
> wrote:

>Just as it should be! And there are still stupid mother****ers out there
>that would rather steal your tv than get a job. They deserve what they
>get.

I agree.

Unfortunately, in Utah anyway, just because someone is in the process
of burglarizing your house you can't legally use deadly force against
the burglar...unless the use of deadly force is to prevent death or
serious bodily injury to yourself, or others.

In other words, if some scum bag walks into your house or garage one
night and just stands there, unarmed and doing nothing that appears
threatening, or grabs a $10,000 painting off of your wall and runs out
the door, about the only thing you can <legally> do is either call a
cop, or physically detain/arrest him yourself.

Then again, if the guy is layed-out dead on your floor when the cops
arrive because you emptied a 15 round mag of Corbon 115gr +P+ hollow
points into his chest, well, it's your word against his.

-Astro

[lal_truckee]

klaus wrote:
> Kurt Knisely > wrote:
>
>>A couple years ago we saw some really odd tracks in Day's Fork (near
>>Alta, of course). It had just dumped, so you couldn't see
>>footprints per say, but some animal had been hopping on all fours
>>through the woods and it left a long tail mark in the snow. I
>>haven't been able to find an image in my tracking books that even
>>resemble what we saw.
>
>
> Wasn't that in Silver? Right at the steepest part of the trail above
> the mine?
>
> Besides, it ain't the aminals you need to worry about...
>
> http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Jul/07192003/utah/76844.asp

Questions must be asked: Was the harvest in? Were the native
agriculturists friendly? What dweeb notified the fascist, freedom
suppressing, representitives of centralized thought control?

And once the crop was smashed down flat, were the resins enough
lubrication to ski upon?

[klaus]

Kurt Knisely > wrote:
> I coulda sworn we had just done Dead Tree into Days (I went left and
> you and J went right), and were about halfway back up to notch into
> W. Bowl. Wasn't it butt cold that day, like near 0F? Whatever, I
> do remember the odd tracks and there wasn't another soul
> around...normal, eh?

That could be. Those days with "The Ripper" always seem to be a bit
foggy.

>>Besides, it ain't the aminals you need to worry about...
>>
>>http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Jul/07192003/utah/76844.asp

> Yea, you missed that. How was the ocean (makes me think of the Led
> Zep song).

Actually, if happened the last day I was in country.... Coincidence?
Dunno.

-klaus

[klaus]

lal_truckee > wrote:
> Questions must be asked: Was the harvest in?

No.. It's a bit early for Mountain Grown.

> Were the native
> agriculturists friendly?

They smiled a lot. That's all I know.

> What dweeb notified the fascist, freedom
> suppressing, representitives of centralized thought control?

Guardian of Justice. Probably one of the same folks that constantly
tells me dogs aren't allowed up there.... as they pass on their ATV.

> And once the crop was smashed down flat, were the resins enough
> lubrication to ski upon?

They burned it at the trailhead.. in high fire hazard...leaving a
larger market share to the terrierists.

-klaus

[klaus]

Alex Heney > wrote:
> And I have had people pass me going AT LEAST 30-40mph faster than I
> was, when I was doing 80-85.

Well hell, what do you expect dilly dallying along like that. I was
once cruising along at 135 and barely had time to get out of the way
of a guy that must have been doing over 170. I tried to pace him but
gave up at 155 and he was still pulling away from me
dramatically. Damn Ferrari drivers.

And yes, those numbers are in MPH.

ObSkiing: I was coming back from skiing in Hintertux.

-klaus

[Jay Pique]

On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 22:25:53 +0000 (UTC), klaus
> wrote:

>Alex Heney > wrote:
>> And I have had people pass me going AT LEAST 30-40mph faster than I
>> was, when I was doing 80-85.
>
>Well hell, what do you expect dilly dallying along like that. I was
>once cruising along at 135 and barely had time to get out of the way
>of a guy that must have been doing over 170. I tried to pace him but
>gave up at 155 and he was still pulling away from me
>dramatically. Damn Ferrari drivers.
>
>And yes, those numbers are in MPH.

Yowza - what were you driving? I was in some sort of Ford sedan
cruising at 120 or so and felt unsafe, to say the least. But that's
probably more of a comment on my driving ability.

>ObSkiing: I was coming back from skiing in Hintertux.

And you didn't get enough adrenaline from that?!

JP
******************************
Not a strong driver.

[lal_truckee]

klaus wrote:

> Alex Heney > wrote:
>
>>And I have had people pass me going AT LEAST 30-40mph faster than I
>>was, when I was doing 80-85.
>
>
> Well hell, what do you expect dilly dallying along like that. I was
> once cruising along at 135 and barely had time to get out of the way
> of a guy that must have been doing over 170. I tried to pace him but
> gave up at 155 and he was still pulling away from me
> dramatically. Damn Ferrari drivers.

you were driving the Landcruiser, no doubt ...

ObSki: Jeff Hamilton, of the neighborhood, clocked 150mph on skis. If
he'd had a Ferrari thumbing it's nose at him, he woulda gone faster.

[MoonMan]

In , Alex Heney typed:
> On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 09:44:53 +0100, "MoonMan"
> > wrote:
> <snip>
>>>
>>> The delicate old-style approach is to use wheel nuts, wait for a car
>>> that's doing 130mph and try to have the driver impact your missile -
>>> the effect's the same as if you fired the nut at 130mph into a
>>> stationary Royal or cabinet minister (nobody else dares do 130 on
>>> the M4 nowadays).
>>
>> I don't think its possible to do 130 on the M4, too many slow
>> lorrys, or are you thinking of in the wilds of Wales?
>
> They don't allow the lorries in the outside lane (where there are
> three). :-)

We'd better start reminding the Lorry drivers of that they seem to be
forgetting!

>
> And I have had people pass me going AT LEAST 30-40mph faster than I
> was, when I was doing 80-85. There were two cars came past me like
> that yesterday evening, around 7PM, between Swindon and Chippenham.

If you where doing 80 then they where doing at least 110, they can't need
thier licenses then, if you ar caught doing 30MPh over the speed limit its
an automatic ban.

--
Chris *<:-)

Downhill Good, Uphill BAD!

www.suffolkvikings.org.uk

[SkiBumOne]

"skibumone" <1skibumatcharterdotnet> wrote in message
...
>
> Yuppie Jack-Ass---> > wrote in message:
> >dude, you really don't want to be wanking around on >stix for chix do ya?
> Let me put it this
> > way - I'd only ride womens' skis if I was such an
>
>
> Dude..... If they work for you, that's all that really matters!! Fuk what
we
> all think!!
>
> I bought my x-snatch some 163 K2 4's back in the day. She only went out
> ski'n a few times with me, and suck'd (not in a good way), when she did.
So
> after she and her shyster lawyer were done sodomizing me, I figured I
would
> give those purple beaut's a try. They were so light and versatile, I feel
in
> love with 'em. I was makin kickers and layin down stuff I hadn't in years,
> their not great for the heavy crud and sierra cement, but they still rock.
> They were short and light, A perfect combo!! I ski on 190 Mod X's but I
> still like to give those a go.
> It really comes down to why you ski....I guess if the only reason you hang
> on the hill is to look good in your Bogner one piece, and suck martini's
> while mocking the masses and stand on your Euro-Trash sticks, then I would
> take'em back.
>
> But if you like to rip and believe American's can make a world class Ski,
> then keep 'em. And don't worry bout a chick's. Most wont be bright enough
to
> tell the difference, the ones that are wont care.
>
> Tofer
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.500 / Virus Database: 298 - Release Date: 7/10/2003
>
>

THE PERSON WHO POSTED THIS IS NOT . Even though I haven't
posted here in a long while, but I DO NOT appreciate my handle being duped.

[SkiBumOne]

THE PERSON WHO POSTED THIS IS NOT . Even though I haven't
posted here in a long while, but I DO NOT appreciate my handle being duped.


"skibumone" <1skibumatcharterdotnet> wrote in message
...
>
> Yuppie Jack-Ass---> > wrote in message:
> >dude, you really don't want to be wanking around on >stix for chix do ya?
> Let me put it this
> > way - I'd only ride womens' skis if I was such an
>
>
> Dude..... If they work for you, that's all that really matters!! Fuk what
we
> all think!!
>
> I bought my x-snatch some 163 K2 4's back in the day. She only went out
> ski'n a few times with me, and suck'd (not in a good way), when she did.
So
> after she and her shyster lawyer were done sodomizing me, I figured I
would
> give those purple beaut's a try. They were so light and versatile, I feel
in
> love with 'em. I was makin kickers and layin down stuff I hadn't in years,
> their not great for the heavy crud and sierra cement, but they still rock.
> They were short and light, A perfect combo!! I ski on 190 Mod X's but I
> still like to give those a go.
> It really comes down to why you ski....I guess if the only reason you hang
> on the hill is to look good in your Bogner one piece, and suck martini's
> while mocking the masses and stand on your Euro-Trash sticks, then I would
> take'em back.
>
> But if you like to rip and believe American's can make a world class Ski,
> then keep 'em. And don't worry bout a chick's. Most wont be bright enough
to
> tell the difference, the ones that are wont care.
>
> Tofer
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.500 / Virus Database: 298 - Release Date: 7/10/2003
>
>

[Alex Heney]

On Sat, 6 Sep 2003 18:18:35 -0600 (MDT), "Karl with a K"
> wrote:

>Sue wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>You really are quite clueless about social skills aren't you? People
>don't like others telling them how they should feel and how they
>should act. It's very rude and intrusive particularly coming from
>someone that has no interpersonal skills. Your obnoxious
>attempts at humor come off as nothing more than condescending
>comments. I would surmise that you have few friends. In other
>words, if you quit ****ing off people, you might make some
>friends. If you don't, you can expect more responses like Lemay's.

I wondered why you snipped everything from the message you were
responding to, until I went to look at it.

You obviously had to snip it all, since your response made absolutely
and utterly no sense whatsoever in the context of that post..

But one of the "social skills" of usenet is to keep enough of the
original posts to give context, and to respond with something that can
be related to the post you are responding to.

--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
To live well, know the difference between good and evil.

To reply by email, my address is aDOTjDOTheneyATbtinternetDOTcom

[scottabe]

in article
cGhhdHBoaWw=.986969a4f616bac04aa004fb47c7fa97@1062 893915.cotse.net, Karl
with a K at wrote on 9/6/03 5:18 PM:

> Sue wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> You really are quite clueless about social skills aren't you? People
> don't like others telling them how they should feel and how they
> should act.

No ****. When I tell people the truth, they threaten my life. They grossly
defame me. When I expect them to act with ethics and morals, they act with
psychopathic hatred.

> It's very rude and intrusive particularly coming from
> someone that has no interpersonal skills.

I find death threats and false accusations of molesting children rude and
intrusive. Apparently you don't.

Your obnoxious
> attempts at humor come off as nothing more than condescending
> comments.

She can be one amoral bitch, but she's a bitch to everybody.

> I would surmise that you have few friends.

I would surmise that you are an asshole, and all your friends are assholes.

In other
> words, if you quit ****ing off people, you might make some
> friends. If you don't, you can expect more responses like Lemay's.
>

Wow. Friends like Lemay.
Friends like you.
Friends like the sick, vile, despicable, amoral assholes of rsa.
Who needs friends?

[Java Man (Espressopithecus)]

In article <cGhhdHBoaWw=.fd7b2c3aee8a12515892586493d37169@
1062969166.cotse.net>, says...
> The Global Idiot wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> You and Sue, the UK blockheads,

snipped

What's wrong with blockheads? I thought that was a requirement here?

;-)

Rick

[scottabe]

in article
cGhhdHBoaWw=.fd7b2c3aee8a12515892586493d37169@1062 969166.cotse.net,
CurtisLemay at wrote on 9/7/03 2:12 PM:

> The Global Idiot wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> You and Sue, the UK blockheads, have developed quite a
> reputation about being totally obtuse and unable to comprehend
> what the hell is going on around you. If that stupid jackass starts
> her backhanded belittling technique, she's going to catch hell.
> Moron.
>
Heney and Sue, allied?
You got to be ****ting me.
Sue's a bitch, but at least she has a tenuous grip on reality. Heney is
delusional.

[scottabe]

in article t, Java Man
(Espressopithecus) at wrote on 9/7/03 2:27 PM:

> In article <cGhhdHBoaWw=.fd7b2c3aee8a12515892586493d37169@
> 1062969166.cotse.net>, says...
>> The Global Idiot wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> You and Sue, the UK blockheads,
>
> snipped
>
> What's wrong with blockheads? I thought that was a requirement here?

Wrong. To belong here, being a psychopathic pathological liar is a
requirement. Rick Knowlan belongs.

[scottabe]

in article
cGhhdHBoaWw=.d651a0bd2b914d72cca2082002602dbb@1062 968817.cotse.net,
CurtisLemay at wrote on 9/7/03 2:06 PM:

> Alex Heney wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 6 Sep 2003 18:18:35 -0600 (MDT), "Karl with a K"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Sue wrote:
> <snippy poo>
>
> You're a ****ing idiot. But then that's nothing new, everyone thinks
> you're a ****ing idiot.
>
For once I agree.

[Alex Heney]

On Sun, 07 Sep 2003 21:27:42 GMT, Java Man (Espressopithecus)
> wrote:

>In article <cGhhdHBoaWw=.fd7b2c3aee8a12515892586493d37169@
>1062969166.cotse.net>, says...
>> The Global Idiot wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> You and Sue, the UK blockheads,
>
>snipped
>
>What's wrong with blockheads? I thought that was a requirement here?
>
>;-)
>

I think it is.

Who wrote that? Whoever it was, they're in my killfile :-) Where II
think Karl can join him/her.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
We all live in a yellow subroutine.

To reply by email, my address is aDOTjDOTheneyATbtinternetDOTcom

[Alex Heney]

On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 15:16:27 -0600 (MDT), "Karl with a K"
> wrote:

><snip>
>
>Are you really that stupid? The two of you have been added to the
>killfiles.
>

Just what, exactly, do you think could have been considered stupid in
what I wrote?

Never mind, I won't see any response.

--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Put on your seatbelt. I'm gonna try something new.

To reply by email, my address is aDOTjDOTheneyATbtinternetDOTcom

[A. B. Normal]

scottabe > wrote in news:BB80F62F.677D%
:

> in article
> cGhhdHBoaWw=.d651a0bd2b914d72cca2082002602dbb@1062 968817.cotse.net,
> CurtisLemay at wrote on 9/7/03 2:06 PM:
>
>> Alex Heney wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 6 Sep 2003 18:18:35 -0600 (MDT), "Karl with a K"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sue wrote:
>> <snippy poo>
>>
>> You're a ****ing idiot. But then that's nothing new, everyone thinks
>> you're a ****ing idiot.
>>
> For once I agree.
>
>

And that's saying something comning from the chief ****ing idiot of
usenet.

[scottabe]

in article , A. B. Normal at
wrote on 9/10/03 7:21 AM:

> scottabe > wrote in news:BB80F62F.677D%
> :
>
>> in article
>> cGhhdHBoaWw=.d651a0bd2b914d72cca2082002602dbb@1062 968817.cotse.net,
>> CurtisLemay at wrote on 9/7/03 2:06 PM:
>>
>>> Alex Heney wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 6 Sep 2003 18:18:35 -0600 (MDT), "Karl with a K"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Sue wrote:
>>> <snippy poo>
>>>
>>> You're a ****ing idiot. But then that's nothing new, everyone thinks
>>> you're a ****ing idiot.
>>>
>> For once I agree.
>>
>>
>
> And that's saying something comning from the chief ****ing idiot of
> usenet.

For once I agree. You have to be a ****ing idiot to expect people to act
like decent human beings on usenet.

[Sue]

> writes

OK, I've cracked.
At the risk <nasty little grin> of being patronising, this troll's a
much better "Mr Annoying" than I could write myself:
>
>You really are quite clueless about social skills aren't you? People
[a tactless person lecturing on tact]
>don't like others telling them how they should feel and how they
[and claiming to speak for everyone]
>should act. It's very rude and intrusive particularly coming from
>someone that has no interpersonal skills. Your obnoxious
[the repetition should irritate]
>attempts at humor come off as nothing more than condescending
[for people who are sensitive about their SOH]
>comments. I would surmise that you have few friends. In other
[a nice pompous touch]
>words, if you quit ****ing off people, you might make some
>friends.
[assuming you want friends like the sender]

It could apply to just about anybody, and to my surprise, it hasn't been
posted on Usenet before, or at least not archived. That could change -
I'm thinking of reposting it at two or three people in other groups who
I dislike and think are gullible enough to fall for it.
Now, is that unethical?
And if it came from one of those "Clever Pranks" spamming pests, is it
still unethical?
--
Sue ];(:)

[scottabe]

in article , Sue at
wrote on 9/13/03 11:02 AM:

> > writes
>
> OK, I've cracked.
> At the risk <nasty little grin> of being patronising, this troll's a
> much better "Mr Annoying" than I could write myself:
>>
>> You really are quite clueless about social skills aren't you? People
> [a tactless person lecturing on tact]
>> don't like others telling them how they should feel and how they
> [and claiming to speak for everyone]
>> should act. It's very rude and intrusive particularly coming from
>> someone that has no interpersonal skills. Your obnoxious
> [the repetition should irritate]
>> attempts at humor come off as nothing more than condescending
> [for people who are sensitive about their SOH]
>> comments. I would surmise that you have few friends. In other
> [a nice pompous touch]
>> words, if you quit ****ing off people, you might make some
>> friends.
> [assuming you want friends like the sender]
>
> It could apply to just about anybody, and to my surprise, it hasn't been
> posted on Usenet before, or at least not archived. That could change -
> I'm thinking of reposting it at two or three people in other groups who
> I dislike and think are gullible enough to fall for it.
> Now, is that unethical?
> And if it came from one of those "Clever Pranks" spamming pests, is it
> still unethical?

Ethics? Usenet? RSA? You have to be trolling.
There is nothing that approximates ethical behavior on this newsgroup.

[Alex Heney]

On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 19:02:10 +0100, Sue >
wrote:

> writes
>
>OK, I've cracked.
>At the risk <nasty little grin> of being patronising, this troll's a
>much better "Mr Annoying" than I could write myself:
>>
>>You really are quite clueless about social skills aren't you? People
>[a tactless person lecturing on tact]
>>don't like others telling them how they should feel and how they
>[and claiming to speak for everyone]
>>should act. It's very rude and intrusive particularly coming from
>>someone that has no interpersonal skills. Your obnoxious
>[the repetition should irritate]
>>attempts at humor come off as nothing more than condescending
>[for people who are sensitive about their SOH]
>>comments. I would surmise that you have few friends. In other
>[a nice pompous touch]
>>words, if you quit ****ing off people, you might make some
>>friends.
>[assuming you want friends like the sender]
>
>It could apply to just about anybody, and to my surprise, it hasn't been
>posted on Usenet before, or at least not archived. That could change -
>I'm thinking of reposting it at two or three people in other groups who
>I dislike and think are gullible enough to fall for it.
>Now, is that unethical?
>And if it came from one of those "Clever Pranks" spamming pests, is it
>still unethical?

It seems to have the "style" of Lemay. One of the biggest perpetrators
of PKB posts I have seen, which is one of the reasons why he is in my
KF.

--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Abandon all hope ye who have entered cyberspace.

To reply by email, my address is aDOTjDOTheneyATbtinternetDOTcom