I'm ba aaaack!
 

"Mys Terry" wrote in message
...

Boy are you ever deluded. Al Qaeda could own us for very little money and
without any great technology. They don't need to hijack any airplanes,
subvert
any ports or bring down any buildings. All they need to do is have a few
knuckleheads figure out some rural school bus routes and start randomly
planting
easily obtainable/stealable construction explosives in drainage culverts
under
roads in scattered spots all over the country to blow up a few busloads of
little kids. You think they wouldn't? I'm completely surprised they
haven't.
We'd have a very hard time catching them all, and there is no way we could
guard
against something like that from becoming essentially an everyday
occurance.

Sounds like you've got a game plan for al Qaeda all figured out. Too bad
for them they don't consult you, huh? You are the deluded one. Al Qaeda no
doubt has examined every possible way to outrage Americans by killing,
maiming, destroying, or mass anhilating. And they've not done anything.
There *is* a reason for that. You have no answers of any sort, either in
the form of an explanation of why they've not done anything beyond 9/11, or
how to prevent them from committing future acts of violence against
Americans. Beyond being a chronic whiner, your rhetoric is meaningless.

I also don't know of anyone other than you and George Bush, who is foolish
enough to think we are in any measure safer flying now than we were prior
to
9/11

We are safer, if not completely. Again you have no evidence to support your
claim that we are no safer. My evidence is that no airplanes have been
hijacked in 4 1/2 years. My evidence is that it is literally impossible to
board domestic and overseas flights in this country with explosives or
weapons. There is absolutely no reason to believe that al Qaeda or some
other Islamist terror group would not have done something during that period
were they able to do so.

Their rules are a lot different than your rules.

And reality is a lot different that your delusional beliefs, distorted by
your hatred of Bush. I don't like him either, but at least I'm objective
enough to examine things logically and dispassionately.

Max

I'm ba aaaack!
 

"Capt.Mooron" wrote in message
news:1Q%Lf.5321$M52.3777@edtnps89...

"Maxprop" wrote in message

This discussion is so amusing as to be comical. Do you honestly believe
a tiny broken wine bottle would have the same impact as an open Swiss
Army knife?

Damn Rights it would..... I know, I've actually been on the receiving
end of a fight where my opponent resorted to a broken bottle.

Now you are really getting amusing, Mooron. Do you honestly expect me to
believe that you would be intimidated by someone wielding a broken 2oz.
airline booze bottle?

Bwaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

I've also been in a knife fight. The cutting edge of a broken half litre
wine bottle

Okay, now tell me--which airline carries wine bottles that size?????

will do ten times the damage with half the effort to four times the amount
of people than a fricken swiss army knife with no locking blade!!

You need to pick your fighting companions more carefully, then. I'll fight
the bottle-wielder any day over one with a knife. A knife can inflict
permanent and/or fatal damage. I'm unaware of much concern over the deaths
caused by broken wine bottles. If they were really as lethal as you seem to
imply, the liberals would be screaming for banning glass wine and liquor
bottles.

The al Qaeda hijackers on 9/11 carried box cutters rather than Swiss Army
knives. They do lock in the open position, but they don't have much ability
to penetrate. I'd take the Swiss Army knife as my personal weapon over the
bottle (snicker) or the box cutter any day. Then again I know how to fight
with a knife, locked blade or no. Give me a tanto and you'll not defeat me
with anything short of a gun.

Max

I'm ba aaaack!
 

"Capt.Mooron" wrote in message
news:is%Lf.5313$M52.51@edtnps89...

"Maxprop" wrote in message

I get fingerprinted every three years in order to obtain a firearms carry
permit. BFD--I have nothing to hide. It makes my fingers black and the
cleanup is a PITA, but hardly worth fretting over. It may be an
infringement on my privacy and personal freedom, but it is what I have to
do to accomplish my goal, so I do it without bitching. To refuse to do
so would mean that I am denied my permit to carry. That would affect
me--not those who have instigated the policies.

Good Grief!!... I have never been fingerprinted. I have a restricted
weapons permit, I have an airside access permit, I have a clean
record..... having something to hide isn't the issue here Max.....
having information about me stored within a system as displayed by the US
government is. I have the option not to have that information gathered.
Despite our idiotic gunlaws in Canada.... I don't require a retinal scan
nor fingerprinting to obtain restricted weapons permit.

A complete set of my prints have been on file with the local, state, and
fedral government for decades. And they've never been used for anything. I
have nothing to hide, and as long as that remains the case, that info just
sits there, full of no sound or fury, signifying nothing. You are truly
paranoid. Do you honestly believe that your prints and retinal scans will
be lying one someone's desktop and pulled up now and then and examined?
"Hmm, John, look here at this Mooron fellow. These prints looks awfully
suspicious. Maybe we'd better do some further investigating of this guy. I
think he may be al Qaeda . . ." In fact any prints taken at the US/Canadian
border will end up in an archive, lost and buried. Most won't even get put
on the fingerprint database servers at the FBI, there will simply be too
many of them.

And no, you don't offend my national pride, or any such silly, fallacious
conclusion you may concoct, in the least. My point is simply that your
indignation is placing limits on your ability to move about the world.
It has no effect whatever upon me or my countrymen. You're more than
welcome to stand on your principles and avoid the US. We don't care in
the slightest.

Bull****.... it's obvious it offends you.

Not in the least. I couldn't care less. This entire debate has been a
mildly amusing entertainment, nothing more, nothing less. To believe
otherwise would be arrogant of you--and you certainly don't want to be
viewed as arrogant, now do you? Fact is, Mooron, only you and Ozzy can
debate with something resembling intelligence and cogent arguments. This is
recreation only. Sorry if I've offended you buy informing you that I really
don't give a rat's posterior if you choose to stand on the border and ****
on our country.

It's not indignation on my part Max.... it's merely refusal to comply with
ridiculous demands.

That would actually suffice as a reasonable definition of indignation.

We are all limited as to our ability to "move about the world"... make no
mistake regarding that fact. Nonetheless... my not having access to the
USA in no way impedes my ability to travel to the remaining 80% of the
countries on this planet that are available to me.
...and Max, I most certainly will stand on my principals.

Good for you, Mooron. Everyone has a right to righteous indignation. Even
you.

I guess, then, that you'll not be going anywhere a passport is necessary,
eh?

You're suffering a brain fart there aren't you Max.... I have a passport
and can travel to the majority of the countries on this planet....
which do not require retinal scans and fingerprinting.

Since most countries eventually and ultimately emulate the security
procedures instituted in the US, you may discover fewer and fewer countries
where such identity records aren't accumulated. You may just achieve that
isolationist status yet.

I currently have an EEC Passport, microchipped and a Canadian Permanent
Resident Card as well as 2 entry visas to the USA labelled "
permanent.indefinite for business or pleasure" . I'm welcome almost
everywhere I choose to go.

I hear Damascus is lovely this time of year. g

Max

I'm ba aaaack!
 

OzOne wrote in message ...
On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 05:41:47 GMT, "Maxprop"
scribbled thusly:


Don't be confused, I am and never have been anti American..though I
tended toward that when the American people re elected the guy who has
put the US in a position from which it is unlikely to recover.

I think you're being melodramatic, Ozzy. W has left us with a major
cluster****, and we won't be finding our way clear of it for some
time--possibly years. But time heals everything. WWI and WWII both came
to
an end, and so will this fiasco. People tire of conflicts, especially
old,
threadbare ones. The day will come when no one has the energy or the will
to continue to fight this war, and then it will disappear. Doomspeakers
said the same thing about Vietnam, but today American soldiers, who fought
there, visit the place and sit down over tea with those they were shooting
at just 25 years earlier.

Who was talking about war/wars?

Semantics. Call it what you will--we are involved in a war.



I am, and have been since Bush was elected, firmly anti US Govt.

Well, you're just a rank novice at it then. There are those of us who've
despised the US government for decades. The line forms at the rear,
around
the corner.

Max

Bwaaahahahhahahahahaaa!
Govt is govt...it's required, it's just that some don't spend such a
high percentage of its income on blowing stuff up.

P'shaw. What ours spends on blowing things up is a mere drop in the pork
barrel compared with domestic waste.

Max

I'm ba aaaack!
 

OzOne wrote in message ...
On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 05:48:58 GMT, "Maxprop"
scribbled thusly:


What was the percentage of the US population who actually voted?

Rather small, compared with that percentage of Iraqi citizens that voted in
their first general election.

What percentage of those voters re elected the monkey?

Roughly half. The other half voted for the jackass.

Max

I'm ba aaaack!
 

OzOne wrote in message ...
On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 14:43:21 GMT, "Maxprop"
scribbled thusly:


OzOne wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 05:20:56 GMT, "Maxprop"
scribbled thusly:

The line that homeland security is the reason for no more
attacks....What was the reason in all the years prior to 911?

You seem to have conveniently ignored the other, failed al Qaeda attempt
to
level the WTC some years before 9/11.

You're correct of course....FBI did nothing to prevent the attack.
Guess the system works eh?

Whose system? Al Qaeda's? Yeah, that one seems to work. Ours? Nope,
that
one's broken and so far no one seems inclined to fix it.
FBI--CIA--NSA--they all grandstand and do everything they can to take
credit
for successes, all the while racking up more and more failures due to a
complete inability to cooperate and share intel.



Rather nicely confirms my contention that the system is broken, eh?

As long as incompetence and resistance to cooperate is the norm in
Washington--both in politics and in police work/intel--we can expect more
of
the same. I'm watching to see if our new Homeland Security system accrues
a
better track record, but I'm skeptical, human nature being what it is. So
far, so good, but the verdict is still out, of course, on HS.

Max



My point excatly.
Smoke and mirrors...no gain

Except that you've given no explanation why we've not been subjected to
further terrorist violence on these shores since HS was created and
implemented. I don't have the answer, but neither do you. So, until we get
attacked again, HS get the benefit of the doubt. *If* we sustain another
9/11-style attack, then your opinion will be vindicated. If not, your
opinion would appear to be inaccurate. That's not being duped--it's simple
logic.

Max

I'm ba aaaack!
 

"Maxprop" wrote in message
Now you are really getting amusing, Mooron. Do you honestly expect me to
believe that you would be intimidated by someone wielding a broken 2oz.
airline booze bottle?

Bwaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Try reading for comprehension and pay attention to the "half litre" part
Max. There are no 2 oz bottles of wine.

Okay, now tell me--which airline carries wine bottles that size?????

All airlines that serve wine have 1/2 litre bottles..... none have 2 oz
bottles.

You need to pick your fighting companions more carefully, then. I'll
fight the bottle-wielder any day over one with a knife. A knife can
inflict permanent and/or fatal damage. I'm unaware of much concern over
the deaths caused by broken wine bottles. If they were really as lethal
as you seem to imply, the liberals would be screaming for banning glass
wine and liquor bottles.

Now you are sounding like Bobsprit on sailing..... you have no idea of the
damage a broken bottle will inflict Max... I do! I assure you the damage is
a lot worse than a pen knife or even a standard pocket knife. A broken
bottle can inflict fatal wounds much more readily than a small blade.
Liberals drink wine.... why they haven't insisted on plastic bottles
probably follows the logic of retinal scans and confiscation of nail
clippers from old ladies with walkers.

.... and Max... I don't pick fighting companions.


The al Qaeda hijackers on 9/11 carried box cutters rather than Swiss Army
knives. They do lock in the open position, but they don't have much
ability to penetrate. I'd take the Swiss Army knife as my personal weapon
over the bottle (snicker) or the box cutter any day. Then again I know
how to fight with a knife, locked blade or no. Give me a tanto and you'll
not defeat me with anything short of a gun.

Oh cripes.... here we go... another American Suburban Superman... you are
now not only grasping straws... but talking through your hat. You have never
been in a knife fight... and obviously never faced an opponent wielding a
broken bottle. I have scars from encounters like that Max. The broken bottle
was by far much worse than the knife..... it's the reason I no longer carry
a blade to the bar.

Tantos.... are decorative knives. They have no use in real life. They were
designed for urban cowboys such as yourself who fancy themselves a closet
Chuck Norris... but have no real life experience with such situations.
Having owned a "Tanto Blade" because I collect knives as a hobby, I know for
a fact that piercing damage and slashing damage is no better than a common
hunting knife of Bowie design. They offer no more advantage in combat than a
common good blade. Finally... you would do exactly what everyone does when
faced with an attack from someone wielding a broken bottle at a bar fight...
fend off and look for an escape route.

....and Max.... you do not in any way conceivable ..."know how to fight". I
can tell that in a minute. You are a blowhard with no experience in
violence. I'm basing that on years of martial arts training and actual
street fighting experience. You talk the talk but can't walk the walk. There
may be some on this group who have had experience with such matters... but
neither you nor Bobsprit ever have... that's for certain. It's not your
"movie of the week on Spike channel" ... real fights are very quick, usually
dealing a majority of the damage within the first few seconds of engagement
and rarely go beyond 2 or 3 minutes. Fancy "Kung Fu" moves are useless.....
there is no choreography in a bar fight.

CM

I'm ba aaaack!
 

"Maxprop" wrote in message

A complete set of my prints have been on file with the local, state, and
fedral government for decades. And they've never been used for anything.
I have nothing to hide, and as long as that remains the case, that info
just sits there, full of no sound or fury, signifying nothing. You are
truly paranoid. Do you honestly believe that your prints and retinal
scans will be lying one someone's desktop and pulled up now and then and
examined? "Hmm, John, look here at this Mooron fellow. These prints looks
awfully suspicious. Maybe we'd better do some further investigating of
this guy. I think he may be al Qaeda . . ." In fact any prints taken at
the US/Canadian border will end up in an archive, lost and buried. Most
won't even get put on the fingerprint database servers at the FBI, there
will simply be too many of them.

Wow..... you must be the poster boy for "Resistance is Futile... you will
be Assimilated". The obedient American Citizen. I commend you for your
abject acquiessence. Selection of "Hiding within the Masses" is a viable
method. Compliance to negate red flagging due to volume isn't the strategy I
would employ... but you seem comfortable with it.

Not in the least. I couldn't care less. This entire debate has been a
mildly amusing entertainment, nothing more, nothing less. To believe
otherwise would be arrogant of you--and you certainly don't want to be
viewed as arrogant, now do you? Fact is, Mooron, only you and Ozzy can
debate with something resembling intelligence and cogent arguments. This
is recreation only. Sorry if I've offended you buy informing you that I
really don't give a rat's posterior if you choose to stand on the border
and **** on our country.

I'm not offended.... why should I be? As you pointed out... it's a debate.
I've never considered "Arrogance" as a bad thing. You do however give a
"rat's ass"... that is obvious. My position brings into question your eager
compliance to your government's demands. You have in effect convinced
yourself that a total invasion of your privacy is the only option to keep
the dogs at bay. The problem is that what you view as ****ing on your
country ... is in effect my ability to enact my freedom of choice...
something your country fought hard and long to secure... only to have it
systematically removed, little by little, without question form you at all.
This is the point I don't understand.


That would actually suffice as a reasonable definition of indignation.

You'd best look up the definition of indignation..... then research "non
compliance".... it might indicate where you have gone so wrong and why I am
so right.

Good for you, Mooron. Everyone has a right to righteous indignation.
Even you.

You'll need better bait than that Max...... :-P


Since most countries eventually and ultimately emulate the security
procedures instituted in the US, you may discover fewer and fewer
countries where such identity records aren't accumulated. You may just
achieve that isolationist status yet.

OMG.... what a wonderful impression of an "Ugly American"!!! Let's see what
could I add.... Oh Yeah!.... the only way the USA undertakes geography is
by invasion. I bet hardly anyone in the USA knew where either Vietnam or
Iraq was until you launched a military action in those regions...
congrats.... in another hundred years and 500 thousand American lives...
you'll be at the Grade 4 level of geographic knowledge exibited by most
other nations!

I hear Damascus is lovely this time of year. g

I would be welcomed in Damascus with either a Belgian or Canadian Flag....
what kind of reception would you expect there? Oh Wait... your comment
explains that already.

CM

I'm ba aaaack!
 

In article , a.a.t.
wrote:

On Sat. Feb. 18, 2006, 3:41pm (PST+19)
OzOne posted:

".......Flew in from that sewer called Los Angeles......"


and on Thu, Feb 23, 2006, 10:17am (PST + 19)
OzOne posted:

"..Unfortunately, you also have sewers like Los Angeles........"


Mr. Oz, I am respectfully asking if you would kindly explain what causes
you to describe Los Angeles in such terms? Granted, as every mega
metropolis, Los Angeles has it's ugly areas, and granted, Los Angeles
is not like our European capitals with gracious architecture and tree
lined boulevards. However..........

Just what areas of Los Angeles were you in? And perhaps you were
limited in time and did not have the time to see areas that would not
cause you to compare them to effluvia?

I really would appreciate your answer, as your reaction is not the
usual one that I hear from other visitors to Los Angeles.

Thanks.........a.a.t.

I'm not Oz but I can answer in 3 letters - LAX.

That's what international visitors experience as their entrance to LA.
Worse than a 3rd World airport in function and service.

PDW

I'm ba aaaack!
 

In article et,
Maxprop wrote:

OzOne wrote in message ...
On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 05:12:37 GMT, "Maxprop"
scribbled thusly:


OzOne wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 01:14:08 GMT, "Maxprop"
scribbled thusly:



Eaxactly my point.
Every non US citizen is subject to the most rigorous scrutiny yet 95%
of containers are left untouched....homeland security is a sham.

Let me play the devil's advocate here for a moment: So we've
established
that examining incoming containers is not feasible. For that reason, is
it
reasonable to simply ignore all other aspects of homeland security that
ARE
feasible, such as clearing individuals for entry?

Max

T's feasible....just look at the number of people employed to check
baggage, people and crdentials at every airport in the US.
Thing is, putting that same number of people into checking containers
has little political advantage because Joe Public won't see the work
being done and be able to wrap himself in that warm fuzzy security
blanket.


Have you ever looked at a shipping container packed full of, say, boxes
with
electronics? There might be literally hundreds or thousands of cardboard
cartons in a single container packed wall-to-wall, floor-to-ceiling. How
does an inspector check each carton to be sure it contains what the label
specifies? A single carton could contains plastique or the makings of a
dirty bomb. Are you going to open each and every one? Some containers
are
packed with loose items, and would be even more difficult to inspect.
From
a cost effectivity standpoint, it isn't feasible to inspect the contents
of
every container entering this country.


Ever thought that the level of personal inspection has lulled most
passengers into a very false sense of security so they are now not on
the lookout for stuff happening onboard?

I think about it every time I fly. But there is little or nothing the
average passenger can do if he spots something or someone suspicious once
airborne. Getting lulled into a false sense of security has obviously
helped the airlines avoid a plunge into the abyss of financial ruin. Most
of them, anyhow.

If, however, we abandon the personal inspections, what prevents a repeat
of
9/11?

Max


Max that's my point...smoke an mirrors and personal inspections are
there to make Joe Public feel as if there's something happening..where
in fact there is no way of protecting the US against an attack

Joe Public isn't as easily fooled as you might choose to believe. The vast
majority of us are fully aware that the measures currently taken by HS are
but a finger in a 12 foot hole in the dike. I have yet to speak with anyone
who actually believes we are even modestly secure now, thanks to measures
taken.

Most of feel we have a somewhat lessened likelihood of becoming part of an
airborne bomb now.

Hell, Max, all you needed to do *before* was to put decent lockable
doors between the pilot's compartment & the passenger compartment. All
this crap about glass, box knives, knitting needles et al is just that
- crap.

PDW

I'm ba aaaack!
 

In article . net,
Maxprop wrote:

"Capt.Mooron" wrote in message
news:1Q%Lf.5321$M52.3777@edtnps89...

"Maxprop" wrote in message

This discussion is so amusing as to be comical. Do you honestly believe
a tiny broken wine bottle would have the same impact as an open Swiss
Army knife?

Damn Rights it would..... I know, I've actually been on the receiving
end of a fight where my opponent resorted to a broken bottle.

Now you are really getting amusing, Mooron. Do you honestly expect me to
believe that you would be intimidated by someone wielding a broken 2oz.
airline booze bottle?

Bwaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Indeed, Max. You are, indeed, wrong and everyone here knows it. I
wasn't referring to those little 2 oz spirits bottles. I guess you
don't drink wine and/or travel on crappy airlines.

Keep digging a deeper hole. Oz is an ex-cop and I believe Mooron WRT
fighting experience far more than I believe you. As for me, I have no
'hands-on' experience, but I know what you can fashion from a broken
bottle, and unlike a box cutter, it's a weapon with both a cutting edge
*and* stabbing ability sufficient to reach major organs.

I just snipped the rest - irrelevant. You're just flailing about in a
****-poor attempt to avoid admitting the whole airline 'security' caper
is smoke & mirrors, incapable of achieving its stated purpose.

All that was needed was secure doors between the pilot's compartment &
the pax space. Damn, that was real difficult to work out oh, about 30
years ago...........

PDW

I'm ba aaaack!
 

Peter Wiley wrote:
In article , a.a.t.
wrote:


On Sat. Feb. 18, 2006, 3:41pm (PST+19)
OzOne posted:

".......Flew in from that sewer called Los Angeles......"


and on Thu, Feb 23, 2006, 10:17am (PST + 19)
OzOne posted:

"..Unfortunately, you also have sewers like Los Angeles........"


Mr. Oz, I am respectfully asking if you would kindly explain what causes
you to describe Los Angeles in such terms? Granted, as every mega
metropolis, Los Angeles has it's ugly areas, and granted, Los Angeles
is not like our European capitals with gracious architecture and tree
lined boulevards. However..........

Just what areas of Los Angeles were you in? And perhaps you were
limited in time and did not have the time to see areas that would not
cause you to compare them to effluvia?

I really would appreciate your answer, as your reaction is not the
usual one that I hear from other visitors to Los Angeles.

Thanks.........a.a.t.


I'm not Oz but I can answer in 3 letters - LAX.

That's what international visitors experience as their entrance to LA.
Worse than a 3rd World airport in function and service.

PDW

L.A. is a put. One of our kids lives in N. Hollywood. We wish he
didn't.

I'm ba aaaack!
 

OzOne wrote in message ...


Jesus, I've had two acquaintances killed by broken bottles...nonewith
a knife!

I think I saw that on the news a while back--two drunks staggered out of a
bar and fell on their bottles, breaking them, stabbing them both in the
heart. Most unfortunate. And oh yeah--my name is Max, but you can call me
Jesus if it suits ya.

Max

I'm ba aaaack!
 

"Capt.Mooron" wrote in message
news:p_iMf.7503$vC4.2309@clgrps12...

"Maxprop" wrote in message
Now you are really getting amusing, Mooron. Do you honestly expect me to
believe that you would be intimidated by someone wielding a broken 2oz.
airline booze bottle?

Bwaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Try reading for comprehension and pay attention to the "half litre" part
Max. There are no 2 oz bottles of wine.

Okay, now tell me--which airline carries wine bottles that size?????

All airlines that serve wine have 1/2 litre bottles..... none have 2 oz
bottles.

You need to pick your fighting companions more carefully, then. I'll
fight the bottle-wielder any day over one with a knife. A knife can
inflict permanent and/or fatal damage. I'm unaware of much concern over
the deaths caused by broken wine bottles. If they were really as lethal
as you seem to imply, the liberals would be screaming for banning glass
wine and liquor bottles.

Now you are sounding like Bobsprit on sailing..... you have no idea of
the damage a broken bottle will inflict Max... I do! I assure you the
damage is a lot worse than a pen knife or even a standard pocket knife. A
broken bottle can inflict fatal wounds much more readily than a small
blade. Liberals drink wine.... why they haven't insisted on plastic
bottles probably follows the logic of retinal scans and confiscation of
nail clippers from old ladies with walkers.

Damn right. It's sure as hell time we outlawed those damned half-liter wine
bottles before we find ourselves having to step over the dead in the
streets. Oh yeah, I know the neocons are going to say "wine bottles don't
kill people--winos kill people."


... and Max... I don't pick fighting companions.

They pick you? Hell, I took you for the last one to get picked for any
"sport."



The al Qaeda hijackers on 9/11 carried box cutters rather than Swiss Army
knives. They do lock in the open position, but they don't have much
ability to penetrate. I'd take the Swiss Army knife as my personal
weapon over the bottle (snicker) or the box cutter any day. Then again I
know how to fight with a knife, locked blade or no. Give me a tanto and
you'll not defeat me with anything short of a gun.

Oh cripes.... here we go... another American Suburban Superman... you are
now not only grasping straws... but talking through your hat. You have
never been in a knife fight...

Good thing for any conceivable opponent.

and obviously never faced an opponent wielding a broken bottle.

Actually I have.

I have scars from encounters like that Max. The broken bottle was by far
much worse than the knife..... it's the reason I no longer carry a blade
to the bar.

Good point. Why carry a blade when you can just break a bottle. I see.

Seriously, however, we aren't talking about scars, rather your life.

Tantos.... are decorative knives. They have no use in real life.

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahah ahahahahahahahaha.

They were designed for urban cowboys such as yourself who fancy themselves
a closet Chuck Norris... but have no real life experience with such
situations.

Your cluelessness is uncanny, Mooron. Proficient in the use of the daito
(you probably call this a katana), the wakizashi, and the tanto, I can
assure you that you are mistaken. I studied with two of the four top
swordsmen in the US for 5 years while attending college--a form of
recreation and a self-imposed method of keeping myself out of trouble.
While most people regard the tanto as the instrument of hara-kiri, it is
among the best defensive weapons in existence, mostly due to its diminutive
length and light weight. It's no daito, but it is lethal. The Samurai used
them for more than just committing sepuchu, or for decoration. Used
properly, only a gun-weilding opponent can defeat a combatant with a tanto.
For the untrained, it's no more valuable than a common jackknife.

Having owned a "Tanto Blade" because I collect knives as a hobby, I know
for a fact that piercing damage and slashing damage is no better than a
common hunting knife of Bowie design.

So, I suppose you also believe that the daito has no greater effectiveness
than a broadsword??? The tanto is not a point-penetrating blade. You
really know nothing about it, do ya?

They offer no more advantage in combat than a common good blade.

Why do you think the blade is thin, narrow, very hard, and slightly curved?
Do you think that's an aesthetic affectation? You really know nothing about
the Samurai weapons, do ya?

Finally... you would do exactly what everyone does when faced with an
attack from someone wielding a broken bottle at a bar fight... fend off
and look for an escape route.

Yes, I would, primarily because I have absolutely no desire to kill anyone,
or even engage in a fight, if it can be avoided in any way. That is
precisely how I was trained. Cornered, however, I'd have no choice but to
fight. And I'd likely dispatch the bottle-wielder without incuring so much
as a scratch. That, too, is how I was trained. You, OTOH, might do well to
urinate in your pants--tends to put off would-be bottle-wielding attackers
somewhat.

...and Max.... you do not in any way conceivable ..."know how to fight". I
can tell that in a minute. You are a blowhard with no experience in
violence. I'm basing that on years of martial arts training and actual
street fighting experience. You talk the talk but can't walk the walk.
There may be some on this group who have had experience with such
matters... but neither you nor Bobsprit ever have... that's for certain.
It's not your "movie of the week on Spike channel" ... real fights are
very quick, usually dealing a majority of the damage within the first few
seconds of engagement and rarely go beyond 2 or 3 minutes. Fancy "Kung Fu"
moves are useless..... there is no choreography in a bar fight.

Believe what you will. Being ignorant is no crime, even in Canada.

Max

I'm ba aaaack!
 

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..
In article . net,
Maxprop wrote:

"Capt.Mooron" wrote in message
news:1Q%Lf.5321$M52.3777@edtnps89...

"Maxprop" wrote in message

This discussion is so amusing as to be comical. Do you honestly
believe
a tiny broken wine bottle would have the same impact as an open Swiss
Army knife?

Damn Rights it would..... I know, I've actually been on the receiving
end of a fight where my opponent resorted to a broken bottle.

Now you are really getting amusing, Mooron. Do you honestly expect me to
believe that you would be intimidated by someone wielding a broken 2oz.
airline booze bottle?

Bwaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Indeed, Max. You are, indeed, wrong and everyone here knows it. I
wasn't referring to those little 2 oz spirits bottles. I guess you
don't drink wine and/or travel on crappy airlines.

No, I don't drink the bilgewater wine served on airplanes. I do see the
little wine bottles, however, and they aren't much bigger than the 2oz.
liquour bottles--maybe 6 oz. max. Mooron says he sees half liter bottles on
planes. I don't believe I've ever seen half liter bottles--half bottles
(375 ml.) yes, but half liter? Never heard of 'em. And I've never seen
half bottles on a plane. Only the peewee ones.


Keep digging a deeper hole. Oz is an ex-cop and I believe Mooron WRT
fighting experience far more than I believe you.

And why is that? Because he's supportive of your argument? Because he's
Canadian, not American? Your rationale for assessing credibility
demonstrates a lack of knowledge and more than a bit of prejudice, methinks.
To your credit, I've had very little fighting experience--mostly parking lot
brawls after drinking too much in college. But I have had fairly extensive
training that neither you nor he knows anything about (at least prior to my
last post to him in this thread). Your decree that you believe him more
than me is not borne of knowledge, rather of prejudice.

As for me, I have no
'hands-on' experience, but I know what you can fashion from a broken
bottle, and unlike a box cutter, it's a weapon with both a cutting edge
*and* stabbing ability sufficient to reach major organs.

You should have quit with the "I have no hands-on experience." Your last
statement is redundant.

I just snipped the rest - irrelevant. You're just flailing about in a
****-poor attempt to avoid admitting the whole airline 'security' caper
is smoke & mirrors, incapable of achieving its stated purpose.

No, I admitted it may be just that. I also acknowledge that it *may* be
effective and working as intended. The evidence sides with the latter, but
no one really knows for sure. Certainly you, Mooron, and Ozzy don't. Until
another plane is hijacked, it's anyone's guess. You, however, make blanket
statements with no supporting evidence whatsoever. Your antipathy toward
the US is your only basis for making such statements, and that shows your
ignorance. If another four planes had been hijacked subsequent to 9/11,
your opinion would bear some credibility. As it is, your opinion is just
that--an unsupported opinion.


All that was needed was secure doors between the pilot's compartment &
the pax space. Damn, that was real difficult to work out oh, about 30
years ago...........

I can't believe I'm reading this from a purportedly intelligent human. So
such a secure cockpit access door would stop a flight crew from acceding to
hijackers' demands if they were carrying a bomb? Are you implying that
hijackers would simply give up if they couldn't gain access to the cockpit.
(Oh ****, Achmed, the pilot won't let us in, and the door is locked. Let's
give the bomb and our guns to the flight attendants and maybe they'll let us
off with a slap on the wrist.") The key to preventing a repeat of 9/11 is
to prevent the hijacking in the first place.

While I'm digging the hole you seem to think I am, you might notice the
self-imposed 20' deep well you're currently standing in, Pete.


Max

I'm ba aaaack!
 

"Capt.Mooron" wrote in message
news:FAjMf.7505$vC4.4558@clgrps12...

"Maxprop" wrote in message

A complete set of my prints have been on file with the local, state, and
fedral government for decades. And they've never been used for anything.
I have nothing to hide, and as long as that remains the case, that info
just sits there, full of no sound or fury, signifying nothing. You are
truly paranoid. Do you honestly believe that your prints and retinal
scans will be lying one someone's desktop and pulled up now and then and
examined? "Hmm, John, look here at this Mooron fellow. These prints
looks awfully suspicious. Maybe we'd better do some further
investigating of this guy. I think he may be al Qaeda . . ." In fact
any prints taken at the US/Canadian border will end up in an archive,
lost and buried. Most won't even get put on the fingerprint database
servers at the FBI, there will simply be too many of them.

Wow..... you must be the poster boy for "Resistance is Futile... you will
be Assimilated". The obedient American Citizen. I commend you for your
abject acquiessence. Selection of "Hiding within the Masses" is a viable
method. Compliance to negate red flagging due to volume isn't the strategy
I would employ... but you seem comfortable with it.

Very. As I said, I have nothing to hide. You, OTOH, must have some serious
closet skeletons lurking about.


Not in the least. I couldn't care less. This entire debate has been a
mildly amusing entertainment, nothing more, nothing less. To believe
otherwise would be arrogant of you--and you certainly don't want to be
viewed as arrogant, now do you? Fact is, Mooron, only you and Ozzy can
debate with something resembling intelligence and cogent arguments. This
is recreation only. Sorry if I've offended you buy informing you that I
really don't give a rat's posterior if you choose to stand on the border
and **** on our country.

I'm not offended.... why should I be? As you pointed out... it's a
debate. I've never considered "Arrogance" as a bad thing.

My father once told me that arrogance is okay if you've got something
substantive to back it up. Do you? Please excuse me if I choose not to
take your word for it.

You do however give a "rat's ass"... that is obvious.

Nope. Frankly I think Scotty summed it up best--our border security has
been successful: it's keeping Mooron out. g

My position brings into question your eager compliance to your
government's demands. You have in effect convinced yourself that a total
invasion of your privacy is the only option to keep the dogs at bay. The
problem is that what you view as ****ing on your country ... is in effect
my ability to enact my freedom of choice... something your country fought
hard and long to secure... only to have it systematically removed, little
by little, without question form you at all. This is the point I don't
understand.

It's simple, really. I haven't surrendered any of my freedoms. To the
contrary, by being fingerprinted every three years, I can exercise my right
to carry a concealed firearm. And having my prints on file with the FBI and
everyone on down is hardly "a total invasion of (my) privacy." In fact,
posting one's own name on this NG is surrendering far more privacy than any
fingerprinting. I value my privacy, and I'm not pleased with some of the
turns this country is taking, such as the Supreme Court decision that allows
taking anyone's private property under the rules of eminent domain in order
to allow a private enterprise to build a new shopping center there. Or the
unauthorized NSA wiretapping bull****. And those are just the tip of the
iceberg. At least we know about such things. How many such things exist in
Canada of which you simply have no knowledge? I'm betting there are plenty.

That would actually suffice as a reasonable definition of indignation.

You'd best look up the definition of indignation..... then research "non
compliance".... it might indicate where you have gone so wrong and why I
am so right.

Then check your Webster's for a definition of "delusional," which is a
rather apt description of your current situation.


Good for you, Mooron. Everyone has a right to righteous indignation.
Even you.

You'll need better bait than that Max...... :-P


Since most countries eventually and ultimately emulate the security
procedures instituted in the US, you may discover fewer and fewer
countries where such identity records aren't accumulated. You may just
achieve that isolationist status yet.

OMG.... what a wonderful impression of an "Ugly American"!!! Let's see
what could I add.... Oh Yeah!.... the only way the USA undertakes
geography is by invasion. I bet hardly anyone in the USA knew where either
Vietnam or Iraq was until you launched a military action in those
regions...

Vietnam was having a rather nice little war when we became involved and
took over for the French at the behest of NATO. And why haven't you
mentioned Kosovo or Bosnia? Could it be because we did something good and
constructive there when no one else chose to do so? Why haven't you
mentioned our liberation of Panama? Did you forget about that, or don't you
know where Panama is? Why haven't you mentioned the Falkland Islands? Is
it because you have no bitch with Britain? And how about Spain, the Dutch,
and the Brits, who for centuries colonized all over the world via the
bloodshed method?

congrats.... in another hundred years and 500 thousand American lives...
you'll be at the Grade 4 level of geographic knowledge exibited by most
other nations!

At least we know where Canada is, and we've done something about it. I've
advocated invasion, but no one's listening to me.


I hear Damascus is lovely this time of year. g

I would be welcomed in Damascus with either a Belgian or Canadian Flag....
what kind of reception would you expect there? Oh Wait... your comment
explains that already.

Lovely place--can't wait to go. And I'd be welcome there as well.
Americans travel within Syria, Iran, and Pakistan daily. That probably
upsets you something awful, dunnit?

Enough of this. You're ****ed off, and it's becoming too long to be
entertaining. Have the last word, if you must.

Max

I'm ba aaaack!
 

OzOne wrote in message ...
On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 05:54:58 GMT, "Maxprop"

Who was talking about war/wars?


Semantics. Call it what you will--we are involved in a war.
Ummm yeah, you are,

So what were you talking about?

But the US is in it's current position for many reasons.
Have a look at the report by the Corps of Engineers and it's forecasts
for New Orleans, LA and Sacramento for starters...then look at what
has been done.
Look at where the dollars have gone..now try and figure out where that
Govt you despise is going to generate that cash....
Yep you guessed it YOU!!!! and just how much juice is left in that
lemon.

You're right on, of course, but this is far from new territory for us.
We've survived worse budgetary debacles. We'll survive this one.

P'shaw. What ours spends on blowing things up is a mere drop in the pork
barrel compared with domestic waste.

Look again.....can you survive fighting wars with very expensive high
tech weapons against people who do quite well with a little dynamite
or fertilizer.

Ultimately, yes. Anyone pushed into a corner, whether a financial one or a
military one, resorts to pulling out the stops to stay alive. All the
religious types have predicted for centuries that the end of the world will
originate in a conflict in the Middle East. Do they know something we
don't? Ever see the movie "On the Beach?" 1960s, situated, at least
partly, in Australia. Scary stuff, and not really so far-fetched.

Max

I'm ba aaaack!
 

OzOne wrote in message ...
On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 05:59:19 GMT, "Maxprop"
scribbled thusly:


OzOne wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 05:48:58 GMT, "Maxprop"
scribbled thusly:


What was the percentage of the US population who actually voted?

Rather small, compared with that percentage of Iraqi citizens that voted
in
their first general election.

Ans waht has that got to do with your situation?

You're so combative that you can't recognize when I'm supporting your point
of view.


What percentage of those voters re elected the monkey?

Roughly half. The other half voted for the jackass.

Jackass has some use..Monkey consumes bananas

Jackass = monkey = jackass. No difference, despite what you choose to
delude yourself into believing. They both spend, tax, and waste, and tell
everyone it's for their own good.

Max

I'm ba aaaack!
 

OzOne wrote in message ...

Jesus Max, can you explain why there were no attacks on US soil before
WTC?
There was no HS then1?

I thought we covered this already. The WTC *was* attacked several years
prior 2001. And planes were hijacked periodically throughout the period
from the 1960s on. There have been no hijackings since. Can you explain
that?


Maybe they're just a little busy recruiting,
Maybe they're just bringing in tiny bits of dirty bombs in containers,
Heck, maybe they're brining in weapons grade uranium concealed INSIDE
the bodies of sacrificial couriers.....
Smoke and mirrors Max...if they want to get around it they will.

Maybe you are jousting at windmills. Maybe al Qaeda has been frustrated by
our security measures since 9/11. Maybe they don't have the funding, or
can't control the funding, thanks to the watchdogs in every bank in every
country throughout the free world.

Personally I agree with you--they will accomplish something in the future.
But that's just an opinion, unsupported by evidence. And so is yours.

Max

I'm ba aaaack!
 

"Maxprop" wrote
Max's memory is has greater longevity and is far less selective than you'd
like to believe. What you have conveniently overlooked is that your analogy
is entirely inappropriate for several reasons: 1) Our enemy (USSR) was
easily identified and nicely compartmentalized. Al Qaeda is neither. .....

On the contrary, while al Qaeda - Islamic Extremism - is more spread out it is
just as easily identified and dealt with.

Dealing with the Soviet missle threat was simple--MAD, or mutual assured
destruction, kept both sides from pushing buttons for almost half a century.
We have no such arrangement with Islamist terrorists.

The Soviets were rational, religious zealots are not, so one must deal with them
more directly. Saddam was doing an excellent job of that in Iraq - he simply
killed them out of hand! In the short term we should follow his example rather
than making life harder for our own people. In the long term we must replace
"schools" that teach radical Islamists to kill "infidels" with moderate schools
that teach the three R's - right after we hang the mullahs running them.

Our war with terrorists is more like a war against rodents. A population of
rodents can be virtually invisible, but inflicting constant and persistent
damage. You can't threaten rodents, and you can't simply aim a bunch of
missles at them and expect them to cease and desist. You take the war to
them, with traps, poisons, and by blocking their entry into your zone of
occupation. ....

True, but as you have pointed out there is NO effective way to block their
entrance, so we'll have to accept a few rats in the house til they can be killed
while we take the war to them with traps, poisons and more. I gotta believe that
a few flame-throwing tanks would help but I'm an amateur - we otta consult
Saddam and Chemical Aly.

I'm ba aaaack!
 

Maxprop wrote:
Vietnam was having a rather nice little war when we became involved and
took over for the French at the behest of NATO.

Wow, you're really making a strong statement here.

And I thought Vito was the foremost practitioner of willful
ignorance on this subject!

Would you also say that the National Guard fired on students
at Kent State in self defense?

DSK

I'm ba aaaack!
 

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
Maxprop wrote:
Vietnam was having a rather nice little war when we
became involved and
took over for the French at the behest of NATO.

Wow, you're really making a strong statement here.

And I thought Vito was the foremost practitioner of
willful
ignorance on this subject!

Would you also say that the National Guard fired on
students
at Kent State in self defense?

Yes they did, those college kids had wine bottles.

SV

I'm ba aaaack!
 

Would you also say that the National Guard fired on
students
at Kent State in self defense?


Scotty wrote:
Yes they did, those college kids had wine bottles.


And they weren't sharing?

DSK

I'm ba aaaack!
 

Maybe it was lousy wine.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
Would you also say that the National Guard fired on
students
at Kent State in self defense?


Scotty wrote:
Yes they did, those college kids had wine bottles.


And they weren't sharing?

DSK

I'm ba aaaack!
 

In article . net,
Maxprop wrote:

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..
In article . net,
Maxprop wrote:

"Capt.Mooron" wrote in message
news:1Q%Lf.5321$M52.3777@edtnps89...

"Maxprop" wrote in message

This discussion is so amusing as to be comical. Do you honestly
believe
a tiny broken wine bottle would have the same impact as an open Swiss
Army knife?

Damn Rights it would..... I know, I've actually been on the receiving
end of a fight where my opponent resorted to a broken bottle.

Now you are really getting amusing, Mooron. Do you honestly expect me to
believe that you would be intimidated by someone wielding a broken 2oz.
airline booze bottle?

Bwaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Indeed, Max. You are, indeed, wrong and everyone here knows it. I
wasn't referring to those little 2 oz spirits bottles. I guess you
don't drink wine and/or travel on crappy airlines.

No, I don't drink the bilgewater wine served on airplanes. I do see the
little wine bottles, however, and they aren't much bigger than the 2oz.
liquour bottles--maybe 6 oz. max. Mooron says he sees half liter bottles on
planes. I don't believe I've ever seen half liter bottles--half bottles
(375 ml.) yes, but half liter? Never heard of 'em. And I've never seen
half bottles on a plane. Only the peewee ones.

So, your experience is limited. We knew that.

Keep digging a deeper hole. Oz is an ex-cop and I believe Mooron WRT
fighting experience far more than I believe you.

And why is that? Because he's supportive of your argument? Because he's
Canadian, not American? Your rationale for assessing credibility
demonstrates a lack of knowledge and more than a bit of prejudice, methinks.
To your credit, I've had very little fighting experience--mostly parking lot
brawls after drinking too much in college. But I have had fairly extensive
training that neither you nor he knows anything about (at least prior to my
last post to him in this thread). Your decree that you believe him more
than me is not borne of knowledge, rather of prejudice.

You can call it that, if you wish. Given that few of us have ever met
in RL, all we really go on is what we can read here combined with our
personal life experiences.

I've been working in the marine area, on & off, most of my life.
Fishermen, heavy cargo ships, oceanographic research vessels. As a tech
type, I am with but not really part of the general crew, but I drink
with them before we sail & after we get into port. I've seen a lot of
brawls in various places. I've seen sailors who routinely carry knives
and fight for fun back off from someone with a broken bottle. Then I
read how you think a broken bottle isn't as dangerous as a box knife.
Of course I discount what you say.

As for me, I have no
'hands-on' experience, but I know what you can fashion from a broken
bottle, and unlike a box cutter, it's a weapon with both a cutting edge
*and* stabbing ability sufficient to reach major organs.

You should have quit with the "I have no hands-on experience." Your last
statement is redundant.

Actually, it's not. If you want to argue about how to make weapons, I
have a pretty good knowledge base. What do you know? I don't mean from
reading a book, what can you, personally, *make*?


I just snipped the rest - irrelevant. You're just flailing about in a
****-poor attempt to avoid admitting the whole airline 'security' caper
is smoke & mirrors, incapable of achieving its stated purpose.

No, I admitted it may be just that. I also acknowledge that it *may* be
effective and working as intended. The evidence sides with the latter, but
no one really knows for sure. Certainly you, Mooron, and Ozzy don't. Until
another plane is hijacked, it's anyone's guess. You, however, make blanket
statements with no supporting evidence whatsoever. Your antipathy toward
the US is your only basis for making such statements, and that shows your
ignorance.

You're projecting, Max. I feel the exact same way about the exact same
stupid rules in Australia. I suppose you think that makes me
antipathetic to Australia, too.

Clue time Max - a stupid law is a stupid law regardless of location.
People like you who try to shift discussion to supposed personal
attributes merely demonstrate that you can't argue on the issues.

If another four planes had been hijacked subsequent to 9/11,
your opinion would bear some credibility. As it is, your opinion is just
that--an unsupported opinion.

Funny, you're agreeing with all the whackos like Oz who want to remove
guns from people. Rationale, there was a mass murder using firearms
here in Tasmania in 1996. Subsequent, following forced surrender of all
auto, semiauto and many other firearms plus compulsory licensing, there
have been no further massacres. Therefore the law is successful in
preventing massacres using firearms.

Unlike you, Max, I have an understanding of statistics and experimental
design.


All that was needed was secure doors between the pilot's compartment &
the pax space. Damn, that was real difficult to work out oh, about 30
years ago...........

I can't believe I'm reading this from a purportedly intelligent human. So
such a secure cockpit access door would stop a flight crew from acceding to
hijackers' demands if they were carrying a bomb? Are you implying that
hijackers would simply give up if they couldn't gain access to the cockpit.
(Oh ****, Achmed, the pilot won't let us in, and the door is locked. Let's
give the bomb and our guns to the flight attendants and maybe they'll let us
off with a slap on the wrist.") The key to preventing a repeat of 9/11 is
to prevent the hijacking in the first place.

Max, Max, Max. Do try to keep up. We are discussing the uselessness of
banning people with Swiss Army knives, knitting needles, nail files,
nail clippers and similar objects while permitting glass bottles et al.
We're not talking about guns & bombs.

Your desperation is showing, I'm afraid.

While I'm digging the hole you seem to think I am, you might notice the
self-imposed 20' deep well you're currently standing in, Pete.

Translation: Max is losing badly and desperately wants to slide onto a
new topic.

PDW

I'm ba aaaack!
 

In article . net,
Maxprop wrote:

OzOne wrote in message ...

Jesus Max, can you explain why there were no attacks on US soil before
WTC?
There was no HS then1?

I thought we covered this already. The WTC *was* attacked several years
prior 2001. And planes were hijacked periodically throughout the period
from the 1960s on.

We know, Max. We know. And guess what? We all knew it back in the
1960's. If the 9/11 terrorists hadn't been able to get into the
cockpits and take control of the planes, the most they'd have been able
to do is kill a few pax by cutting their throats. It was lack of
physical security of the cockpits that led to 9/11.

There have been no hijackings since. Can you explain
that?

Ah. I see you logic. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc, if I remember my
Latin.


Maybe they're just a little busy recruiting,
Maybe they're just bringing in tiny bits of dirty bombs in containers,
Heck, maybe they're brining in weapons grade uranium concealed INSIDE
the bodies of sacrificial couriers.....
Smoke and mirrors Max...if they want to get around it they will.

Maybe you are jousting at windmills. Maybe al Qaeda has been frustrated by
our security measures since 9/11.

You think so?

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/31/illegal.immigration/

Lessee, how many people did the 9/11 attack? What percentage of illegal
immigrants since 9/11 is that?

Maybe they don't have the funding, or
can't control the funding, thanks to the watchdogs in every bank in every
country throughout the free world.

Personally I agree with you--they will accomplish something in the future.
But that's just an opinion, unsupported by evidence. And so is yours.

And mine. I think they should be hunted down and assassinated,
personally. I sincerely hope that's happening, that they're so busy
looking over their shoulders that their time for plotting aggressive
action is very limited.

PDW

I'm ba aaaack!
 

OzOne wrote in message ...
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 05:05:53 GMT, "Maxprop"
scribbled thusly:


OzOne wrote in message
. ..


Jesus, I've had two acquaintances killed by broken bottles...nonewith
a knife!

I think I saw that on the news a while back--two drunks staggered out of a
bar and fell on their bottles, breaking them, stabbing them both in the
heart. Most unfortunate. And oh yeah--my name is Max, but you can call
me
Jesus if it suits ya.

Max


Ahhh Max,
Take your index finger and place it just beside your adams apple, feel
that beating under the skin?
That's the blood supply to your puny little brain, it's very very
vulnerable and once severed, almost impossible to repair before death
ensues.
If you'd care to look here
http://tinyurl.com/k92zf
you'll come across Bobby Brown....I surfed with him, and quite a few
of the guys mentioned here
http://tinyurl.com/gbxw5
He was stabbed in the throat with a broken beer glass and died quickly
on the floor of the Cronulla Hotel.

His death was a small part of the reason I became a copper.

It's sad, really, all that awful violence in Oz. If only surfers were
allowed to carry guns . . .

Max

I'm ba aaaack!
 

OzOne wrote in message ...


Ummm, that would be the people you pay to tackle armed persons...you
know, trained persons, not some unarmed civilian.

Ah yes, cops wielding broken wine bottles.

Max

I'm ba aaaack!
 

OzOne wrote in message ...


Oh, and that bottle you grabbed off the drinks cart makes a really
good club....champagne bottles are excellent!

I'd have to have a Dom Perignon '54 at the very least. It certainly
wouldn't do to be seen clubbing someone to death with a Korbel.

Max

I'm ba aaaack!
 

"katy" wrote in message
...


L.A. is a put. One of our kids lives in N. Hollywood. We wish he didn't.

Hollywood is a cesspool. How did they end up there?

Max

I'm ba aaaack!
 

The bottle isn't big enough...

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
nk.net...

OzOne wrote in message
...


Oh, and that bottle you grabbed off the drinks cart makes a really
good club....champagne bottles are excellent!

I'd have to have a Dom Perignon '54 at the very least. It certainly
wouldn't do to be seen clubbing someone to death with a Korbel.

Max

I'm ba aaaack!
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Maxprop" wrote in message
nk.net...

OzOne wrote in message
...


Oh, and that bottle you grabbed off the drinks cart makes a really
good club....champagne bottles are excellent!

I'd have to have a Dom Perignon '54 at the very least. It certainly
wouldn't do to be seen clubbing someone to death with a Korbel.

The bottle isn't big enough...

Think *magnum*, Jon.

"This is a Dom Perignon '54 magnum, so go ahead and make my day, sucker."

Max

I'm ba aaaack!
 

Pfff... Magnum.. I was thinking NEBUCHADNEZZAR or SOVERIGN.

http://damngoodwine.com/botts1.htm

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Maxprop" wrote in message
nk.net...

OzOne wrote in message
...


Oh, and that bottle you grabbed off the drinks cart makes a really
good club....champagne bottles are excellent!

I'd have to have a Dom Perignon '54 at the very least. It certainly
wouldn't do to be seen clubbing someone to death with a Korbel.

The bottle isn't big enough...

Think *magnum*, Jon.

"This is a Dom Perignon '54 magnum, so go ahead and make my day, sucker."

Max

I'm ba aaaack!
 

In article , OzOne wrote:

On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 22:30:44 +0000, Peter Wiley
scribbled thusly:


Funny, you're agreeing with all the whackos like Oz who want to remove
guns from people. Rationale, there was a mass murder using firearms
here in Tasmania in 1996. Subsequent, following forced surrender of all
auto, semiauto and many other firearms plus compulsory licensing, there
have been no further massacres. Therefore the law is successful in
preventing massacres using firearms.

Unlike you, Max, I have an understanding of statistics and experimental
design.


Who you callling a whacko...apple cruncher!?

Hey, same logic. What's your problem with it?

Just think, if the hooligans at Cronulla had guns, we could have had a
REAL riot, with dead people and all!

Yeah, I know.

Actually, Oz, a lot of the Lebanese guys do have guns. Mainly smuggled
handguns. I'm very glad that nobody brought guns to a punch-up, really.
I'm also pretty horrified that the cops basically stood idly by on
instructions from their bosses when the revenge attacks were taking
place. I never thought I'd wish for the return of the likes of the old
Tactical Response Group but.......

Nor do I want to get into yet another pro/anti gun argument. This is a
nice peaceful place where I am - 43 06.6 S 147 15.6 E. At least 50% of
my neighbours have guns for rabbits, possums etc. Nobody cares about a
few shots. That's totally different to living in suburbia. I think I'm
getting to the point where I really *don't* trust people in cities to
act like sensible human beings any more, at least not en masse.

PDW

I'm ba aaaack!
 

Ozzy wrote


My reasons for removal of WINE BOTTLES from the general
public are
uunrelated to Port Arthur..

Just think, if the hooligans at Cronulla had BOTTLES,
we could have had a
REAL riot, with dead people and all!


Actually, the number of WINE BOTTLES in the hands of
Lebs and others is to
my knowledge very small.

Yep, rifles in rural settings are not a problem, WINE
BOTTLES in
suburbia....well it's just asking for trouble.


Ozzy, your nuts!

I'm ba aaaack!
 

"Maxprop" wrote ...

The bottle isn't big enough...

Think *magnum*, Jon.

"This is a Dom Perignon '54 magnum, so go ahead and make
my day, sucker."


Ozzy only allows boxed wine in his house.


Scotty, Don't bring a wine box to a bottle fight!

I'm ba aaaack!
 

"DSK" wrote
And I thought Vito was the foremost practitioner of willful
ignorance on this subject!

I know Doug's the expert - he read all about 'nam and Jesus in a science fiction
work about a turtle.

Would you also say that the National Guard fired on students
at Kent State in self defense?


But I have been to Kent State. If you look at a map only a 100 yards or so
seperated the kids from the Guard - what that ignores is that the 100 yards
comprises a near vertical bluff.

OTOH, the killings did achieve Nixon's objective - the anti-war demos more or
less evaporated.

I'm ba aaaack!
 

OzOne wrote
Heck yeah....then during the riots they had a Cronulla at the
beginning of summer, We could have had dozens killed instead of just a
few bruises......Media would love it!!

So would Darwin, Oz. By preventing the carnage you are at odds with the very
force that led us to evolve into humans and thus thwarting farther progress.
Shape up! g

I'm ba aaaack!
 

"Maxprop" wrote
"katy" wrote
L.A. is a put. One of our kids lives in N. Hollywood. We wish he didn't.

Hollywood is a cesspool. How did they end up there?

Yes g move him to Compton. It's a nice little town.

I'm ba aaaack!
 

Just think, if the hooligans at Cronulla had guns, we could have had a
REAL riot, with dead people and all!


And (to be really pessimistic) that would suit some people's
political ambitions perfectly.

Peter Wiley wrote:
Actually, Oz, a lot of the Lebanese guys do have guns. Mainly smuggled
handguns. I'm very glad that nobody brought guns to a punch-up, really.
I'm also pretty horrified that the cops basically stood idly by on
instructions from their bosses when the revenge attacks were taking
place. I never thought I'd wish for the return of the likes of the old
Tactical Response Group but.......


Don't know what that is... perhaps an outfit like the old
Black & Tans in Ireland?


Nor do I want to get into yet another pro/anti gun argument.

Aww, why not?

My take: people who think that they should not be allowed to
have guns should not be forced to buy one. People who think
crooks should not be allowed to own guns should read the
current laws (and reflect on the likely impact of further
unenforced laws). People who think that *I* should not be
allowed to own guns need to think again.


... This is a
nice peaceful place where I am - 43 06.6 S 147 15.6 E. At least 50% of
my neighbours have guns for rabbits, possums etc. Nobody cares about a
few shots. That's totally different to living in suburbia.

Agreed. Urbia is even worse, althought there's always the
chance it's just a car backfiring.

... I think I'm
getting to the point where I really *don't* trust people in cities to
act like sensible human beings any more, at least not en masse.


Of course not. You know how rats behave when overcrowded, right?

Regards
Doug King