wrote in message
...
On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 13:07:39 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Knives are designed to kill. Swords are designed to kill. Arrows are
designed to kill. It is not the object it is the intent of the user of
the object. The object just makes it easier and faster for the user to
implement his intent.



No they aren't. They're designed to cut. Some swords are ceremonial.
Arrows?
Like this: --- Seems harmless enough.


There are ceremonial guns too, what's your point?
A sword is just a weapon for killing people, good for nothing else.
You can't even say people hunt with swords.


Seems like you are beginning to catch on to her MO.

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 20:57:08 -0400, Secular Humorist
wrote:

On 9/18/10 8:54 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 13:07:39 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Knives are designed to kill. Swords are designed to kill. Arrows are
designed to kill. It is not the object it is the intent of the user of
the object. The object just makes it easier and faster for the user to
implement his intent.



No they aren't. They're designed to cut. Some swords are ceremonial.
Arrows?
Like this: --- Seems harmless enough.


There are ceremonial guns too, what's your point?
A sword is just a weapon for killing people, good for nothing else.
You can't even say people hunt with swords.


You obviously haven't seen that show on Versus..."Swordslashing that
Deer to an Easy, Sportsmanlike Death"

It takes a brave man to hunt defenseless animals... :)

... and those defenseless fish.

For the last 40 years my hunting has been against the wily skeet

Krause is a recently reformed fish torturer and killer. The new kinder and
gentler Krause hunts only tree stumps and paper targets.

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 18:20:05 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 13:07:39 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Knives are designed to kill. Swords are designed to kill. Arrows are
designed to kill. It is not the object it is the intent of the user of
the object. The object just makes it easier and faster for the user to
implement his intent.



No they aren't. They're designed to cut. Some swords are ceremonial.
Arrows?
Like this: --- Seems harmless enough.


There are ceremonial guns too, what's your point?
A sword is just a weapon for killing people, good for nothing else.
You can't even say people hunt with swords.

Not for mass killing. That's the point of restricting guns or bullets.

The biggest mass murder in our history was executed with box openers.
Prior to that it was a truckload of fertilizer.


I wonder. Why does DelaPlume keep that shotgun. We know she isn't a hunter.
Must be that she's planning a mass murder.

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 18:19:23 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Yes I did and the question still stands

Lots of people get killed in cars and are not speeding or drunk. They
were just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Everyone mixes chemicals and I bet you have lethal ones under your
kitchen sink. Should we ban bleach? There are at least a dozen other
things around the house you can mix with bleach and create massive
amounts of chlorine gas. "This bleach is not getting the soap scum out
of the shower, maybe a little ammonia will help" and the paramedics
find the body.

They are on the news this week saying they should not be able to sell
cough medicine because a couple kids drank a quart of it and died.

Where do you stop?

So, you don't think we should ban some really nasty pesticides?


We have. The unintended consequence is the mosquito became the most
dangerous animal in the 3d world.


And banning DDT caused the massive hotel bedbug infestation of hotel rooms,
probably airplanes too.

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 22:26:01 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

It is called freedom. Once we decide it is OK to ban something because
it might hurt someone where do you stop.

WTF? that's WHY we ban stuff....speeding...drunk driving...mixing
chemicals in your basement...

did you think about that before you wrote it?

Yes I did and the question still stands

Lots of people get killed in cars and are not speeding or drunk. They
were just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Everyone mixes chemicals and I bet you have lethal ones under your
kitchen sink. Should we ban bleach?

all of these things have a use, especially cars. the deaths from
these other things...bleach, etc...are not frequent and are due to
misuse.


guns, OTOH, can, and have been banned in many countries with no ill
effects at all. given the costs, there's no use for them

I could make the same argument for all but commercial boats and at
least half of the cars people own. Some real oil company haters would
say most cars people own.

UK eliminated the few guns they let people have and their murder rate
went up.


If Bupie had invested in guns instead of letting "Wall Street" run his
portfolio, he might be ahead of the game now.

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 04:35:40 -0700 (PDT), "JustWaitAFrekinMinute!"
wrote:

On Sep 19, 1:38*am, wrote:
On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 22:12:46 -0700, "nom=de=plume"

wrote:
So, you don't think we should ban some really nasty pesticides?

We have. The unintended consequence is the mosquito became the most
dangerous animal in the 3d world.

Come on.http://www.ejnet.org/dioxin/

DDT was not really dangerous to people. That was it's selling point.
The reason it was banned was the effect on birds.
(Read Rachel Carson's book)
Like a lot of things the knee jerk was out of proportion to the
problem. Because we thought DDT was safe we were pumping tons of it
into the environment without any thoughts about the effect and any
control on it's use. There are lots of people who think that if we
would use it with the same controls we use with other poisons these
days it would be safer than what we use. Your link to dioixin is a
good example.
Some say there are no safe insecticides. After all it is poison.
If you are talking about some third world countries we are talking
about millions of people dying from diseases spread by insects that
could be controlled more safely with DDT in very small doses.
This is not me talking, it is respected world health authorities.

Howabout Chloradane (sp?). That stuff really doesn't hurt the
environment, it was basically banned because workers were using it
wrong and killing themselves in the fields. They would spray and rub
the trees and next thing you know, they find them dead in the field.
At least that is what I was told by a bug guy. I had a gallon of it
years ago, it was incredible. A quater cup or so in a gallon of water
and it even took out ground bees, all of em, dead or gone...

The thing they didn't like about Chloradane was it was not
biodegradable. It lasts for decades. If people are just spraying it
willy nilly into the environment that is a bad thing. It gets into the
ground water and contaminates rivers. If it is properly used in a
place where it is sequestered like under a poured concrete slab
(termites) it is of no particular danger.

I still have about a half gallon and that is a lifetime supply. I did
shoot some under the slab on my addition.
The right mix would have been more like a couple tablespoons in a
gallon of water but read the label. It came in several concentrations
but that was overkill for bees.

Quite honestly I don't remember the mixture on the bottle but now that
you mention it, the tablespoons seems more likely... Either way, I
didn't ever find a need to use it "heavy".. The stuff worked well. I
used the last of it when we moved to the old haunt down on the
shoreline...

--
OH, I could do the 105 footer, but I would hate to waste the last few
seconds of my life with my eyes closed, screaming like a little
girl...

On 9/19/10 11:36 AM, wrote:


I still have about a half gallon and that is a lifetime supply. I did
shoot some under the slab on my addition.
The right mix would have been more like a couple tablespoons in a
gallon of water but read the label. It came in several concentrations
but that was overkill for bees.

We don't use any pesticides, and certainly don't want anything around
that would kill bees. The bees are having a tough enough time. We do put
up traps for the damned Japanese beetles, though...and they only attract
the beetles.

On 9/19/10 11:43 AM, I am Tosk wrote:


Quite honestly I don't remember the mixture on the bottle but now that
you mention it, the tablespoons seems more likely... Either way, I
didn't ever find a need to use it "heavy".. The stuff worked well. I
used the last of it when we moved to the old haunt down on the
shoreline...


Two tablespoons in your beer should have done it.

"Secular Humorist" wrote in message
...
On 9/19/10 11:43 AM, I am Tosk wrote:


Quite honestly I don't remember the mixture on the bottle but now that
you mention it, the tablespoons seems more likely... Either way, I
didn't ever find a need to use it "heavy".. The stuff worked well. I
used the last of it when we moved to the old haunt down on the
shoreline...


Two tablespoons in your beer should have done it.

~~ Snerk ~~

"Secular Humorist" wrote in message
...
On 9/19/10 11:36 AM, wrote:


I still have about a half gallon and that is a lifetime supply. I did
shoot some under the slab on my addition.
The right mix would have been more like a couple tablespoons in a
gallon of water but read the label. It came in several concentrations
but that was overkill for bees.

We don't use any pesticides, and certainly don't want anything around that
would kill bees. The bees are having a tough enough time. We do put up
traps for the damned Japanese beetles, though...and they only attract the
beetles.


I was going to say that.
I've seen reports where farmers are concerned about a decline in the bee
population since they are very important for pollination in agricultural
circles.
Now we have whackos like The Freak spraying around dangerous compounds
wiping them out.
Wonder if the federal Agriculture people would be interested?