Ping: KC
 

On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 12:57:55 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/24/2014 12:37 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 12:16:31 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/24/2014 11:43 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 11:38:12 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/24/2014 11:28 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 10:17:52 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/24/2014 10:12 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sun, 23 Nov 2014 23:16:32 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


Scott, one of your posts this evening caused me to step back and
consider something.

You and I have exchanged barbs many times on this newsgroup and disagree
about many things.

One thing I didn't realize however is how you apparently take some of my
comments to heart. Believe it or not most of them are intended to be
light-hearted but I now realize you may be taking them personally and
seriously.

Maybe it's the other than the 'most' that might cause some hard
feelings.

It has never been my intent to cause you any anxiety or to make you
uncomfortable in a lasting way. If I have, please accept my sincere
apology.

Does this refer to 'most' of the time?

I enjoy lively debates and sometimes can get a little caustic.
It's nothing personal. It's the debate.




Those comments were directed to Scott. Not you.


They appear pretty public.

Forgot to ask, do debates cause you to personal attacks?



Occasionally in response to being called an asshole or the "**** you"
that comes along sometimes. Also when comments are taken totally out of
context or simply falsely stated or attributed.

Why do you ask?



Why did you ask what year I retired?

I think you and I both entered the military at about the same year give
or take. I had some thoughts on what race relations were like at the
time but changed my mind about expressing them here.


I asked because there has been a notable change in your behavior
lately. You've gone from very respectable to very Toadish, in my
opinion. But, as you say, if I don't like it, "Tough ****."

I try (not always successfully) to treat people with the same degree of
respect that they afford me. In fact, sometimes I've been accused of
being too respectful.

Your comment regarding Harry (above) is along those lines. The group in
general has taken it upon themselves to condemn him and, it seems,
anyone else who is willing to discuss anything with him. Some people
here try to control who can be addressed and who should not, according
to *their* relationship with others. I don't go for that.


My comment Harry had nothing to do with your conversing with
Harry. I think it's funny at times, but don't give a rat's patootie
that you do so.

The comment had to do with your behavior, a comparison to Toad's
behavior.



I see. Wearing the badge today, huh?


You asked, I answered.

Ping: KC
 

On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 12:46:50 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/24/2014 12:17 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 11:47:32 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/24/2014 11:35 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 10:33:30 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/24/2014 10:22 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 11/24/14 10:17 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/24/2014 10:12 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sun, 23 Nov 2014 23:16:32 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


Scott, one of your posts this evening caused me to step back and
consider something.

You and I have exchanged barbs many times on this newsgroup and
disagree
about many things.

One thing I didn't realize however is how you apparently take some
of my
comments to heart. Believe it or not most of them are intended to be
light-hearted but I now realize you may be taking them personally and
seriously.

Maybe it's the other than the 'most' that might cause some hard
feelings.

It has never been my intent to cause you any anxiety or to make you
uncomfortable in a lasting way. If I have, please accept my sincere
apology.

Does this refer to 'most' of the time?

I enjoy lively debates and sometimes can get a little caustic.
It's nothing personal. It's the debate.




Those comments were directed to Scott. Not you.



Herring is still upset with you because you don't subscribe to his
concept of no gun laws.



Tough ****. His expressed idea for responsible gun control is for all
the states to adopt the root'in-toot'in policies of his home state of
Virginia.


Me upset 'cause you didn't change your opinion? And you buy that? What
a joke. Of course, Toad said it, so in your mind it must be true.

I didn't start the caustic comments and not-so-subtle attacks in the
gun control discussion. I couldn't care less what controls you want.
They would do nothing but make government bigger. They sure as hell
wouldn't solve the shooting problems in Chicago, Flint, New Orleans,
Detroit, etc.

You have yet to come up with a decent argument, but you fail to
respond to opposing arguments put forth.

Sad, truly sad. (Where have I heard that before?)



The only argument I've made is for universal background checks (FFL and
private sales) and a registration system to maintain a chain of
custody. You know, the same argument supported by the majority of US
citizens.


Perhaps you could provide a cite showing the majority support for the
registration system?

I've no problem with instant background checks, such as those required
in Virginia. And if the same system was provided to individuals, then
I'd have no problem with using it when I transfer a gun.



Registration does not have the same level of support as universal
background checks. But there's the irony. A background check done by
an FFL today automatically generates a record or "registration" for that
transfer. Right now it's held locally in the FFL files but that could
easily go into a national data base. If background checks were expanded
to all transfers in the same manner that they are done by FFL's, a
registration and chain of custody would happen by default.

Those opposed to a registration system or chain of custody records seem
to object for two primary reasons:

1. Another government bureaucracy.
2. (and this one is the most interesting) ... concern that there will be
a record of who owns guns for when the government comes to confiscate
them. Goes to the 2A argument.

So, let's say there are no required records but the government bans
guns. What are you going to do about it? Not much.

But I'll still have the guns about which the government knows nothing.

The benefit of a chain of custody is that it helps limit the number of
guns obtained illegally by the criminal mindset. It doesn't happen
overnight but it starts the process.

Not if the seller reports it lost or stolen. For enough bucks, he'll
do just that. You have nothing to show that your chain of custody
would limit anything.

But, then all I hear is "dead is dead", so it doesn't matter.


I thought you'd said, "...The only argument I've made is for universal
background checks (FFL and private sales) and a *registration system*
to maintain a chain of custody. You know, the *same argument*
supported by the *majority of US citizens*." (My emphasis added.)

Someone here just recently commented about things being added that
weren't true.

Ping: KC
 

On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 11:56:37 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...


I think there's some confusion on what I am up to. I am not researching
specific people or personalities. It's more on how
groups interact.

You probably mean how people interact within a group dynamic.
It's pretty simple to my eyes. A bunch of old men with time on their
hands arguing. The weak ones just jump on the one they don't like, for
whatever reason. You friend Jim is a good example. Hardly ever says
anything unless he's jumping on Harry or Don. Harry doesn't have to
jump on anybody, he's capable of offending everybody at once.
But mostly what you have is a bunch of old dogs who can't learn new
tricks.

You are the expert on group dynamics. Look at your description of
ISIS. Nothing but thugs. Right on.

Ping: KC
 

On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 13:11:00 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 11/24/14 12:46 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/24/2014 12:17 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 11:47:32 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/24/2014 11:35 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 10:33:30 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/24/2014 10:22 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 11/24/14 10:17 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/24/2014 10:12 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sun, 23 Nov 2014 23:16:32 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"

wrote:


Scott, one of your posts this evening caused me to step back and
consider something.

You and I have exchanged barbs many times on this newsgroup and
disagree
about many things.

One thing I didn't realize however is how you apparently take some
of my
comments to heart. Believe it or not most of them are intended
to be
light-hearted but I now realize you may be taking them
personally and
seriously.

Maybe it's the other than the 'most' that might cause some hard
feelings.

It has never been my intent to cause you any anxiety or to make
you
uncomfortable in a lasting way. If I have, please accept my
sincere
apology.

Does this refer to 'most' of the time?

I enjoy lively debates and sometimes can get a little caustic.
It's nothing personal. It's the debate.




Those comments were directed to Scott. Not you.



Herring is still upset with you because you don't subscribe to his
concept of no gun laws.



Tough ****. His expressed idea for responsible gun control is for all
the states to adopt the root'in-toot'in policies of his home state of
Virginia.


Me upset 'cause you didn't change your opinion? And you buy that? What
a joke. Of course, Toad said it, so in your mind it must be true.

I didn't start the caustic comments and not-so-subtle attacks in the
gun control discussion. I couldn't care less what controls you want.
They would do nothing but make government bigger. They sure as hell
wouldn't solve the shooting problems in Chicago, Flint, New Orleans,
Detroit, etc.

You have yet to come up with a decent argument, but you fail to
respond to opposing arguments put forth.

Sad, truly sad. (Where have I heard that before?)



The only argument I've made is for universal background checks (FFL and
private sales) and a registration system to maintain a chain of
custody. You know, the same argument supported by the majority of US
citizens.


Perhaps you could provide a cite showing the majority support for the
registration system?

I've no problem with instant background checks, such as those required
in Virginia. And if the same system was provided to individuals, then
I'd have no problem with using it when I transfer a gun.



Registration does not have the same level of support as universal
background checks. But there's the irony. A background check done by
an FFL today automatically generates a record or "registration" for that
transfer. Right now it's held locally in the FFL files but that could
easily go into a national data base. If background checks were expanded
to all transfers in the same manner that they are done by FFL's, a
registration and chain of custody would happen by default.

Those opposed to a registration system or chain of custody records seem
to object for two primary reasons:

1. Another government bureaucracy.
2. (and this one is the most interesting) ... concern that there will be
a record of who owns guns for when the government comes to confiscate
them. Goes to the 2A argument.

So, let's say there are no required records but the government bans
guns. What are you going to do about it? Not much.

The benefit of a chain of custody is that it helps limit the number of
guns obtained illegally by the criminal mindset. It doesn't happen
overnight but it starts the process.

But, then all I hear is "dead is dead", so it doesn't matter.



I have to admit I am getting a kick out of reading some of your
discussions on this and other issues with the hardline righties here. A
couple of righties I had previously thought to be nearly rational have
revealed themselves to be otherwise and a couple I had previously
thought were near the edge have gone over it.

....because they disagree with you two. Wow.

Ping: KC
 

On 11/24/2014 1:17 PM, Poco Loco wrote:

On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 12:46:50 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


So, let's say there are no required records but the government bans
guns. What are you going to do about it? Not much.



But I'll still have the guns about which the government knows nothing.


For what? You can't go to the range anymore. You can't go hunting
squirrels or whatever it is you eat for dinner. If you get caught
outside with your gun you'll be arrested and the gun will be confiscated.

What's the purpose of the gun then? To fend off the U.S. Army?

There's no infringement on your rights by being required to register a
gun, as I see it. It may start to help control who gets them when you
decide to sell them, two or three owners down the line.

Ping: KC
 

On 11/24/2014 12:56 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...


I think there's some confusion on what I am up to. I am not researching
specific people or personalities. It's more on how
groups interact.

You probably mean how people interact within a group dynamic.
It's pretty simple to my eyes. A bunch of old men with time on their
hands arguing. The weak ones just jump on the one they don't like, for
whatever reason. You friend Jim is a good example. Hardly ever says
anything unless he's jumping on Harry or Don. Harry doesn't have to
jump on anybody, he's capable of offending everybody at once.
But mostly what you have is a bunch of old dogs who can't learn new
tricks.

How about you Jim? You seem as spastic as ever. You must be too busy
issuing insults to "others" to offer any boating related material.
Do you have any new tricks you'd like to teach us?

Ping: KC
 

On 11/24/2014 12:16 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/24/2014 11:43 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 11:38:12 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/24/2014 11:28 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 10:17:52 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/24/2014 10:12 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sun, 23 Nov 2014 23:16:32 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"

wrote:


Scott, one of your posts this evening caused me to step back and
consider something.

You and I have exchanged barbs many times on this newsgroup and
disagree
about many things.

One thing I didn't realize however is how you apparently take
some of my
comments to heart. Believe it or not most of them are intended
to be
light-hearted but I now realize you may be taking them personally
and
seriously.

Maybe it's the other than the 'most' that might cause some hard
feelings.

It has never been my intent to cause you any anxiety or to make you
uncomfortable in a lasting way. If I have, please accept my sincere
apology.

Does this refer to 'most' of the time?

I enjoy lively debates and sometimes can get a little caustic.
It's nothing personal. It's the debate.




Those comments were directed to Scott. Not you.


They appear pretty public.

Forgot to ask, do debates cause you to personal attacks?



Occasionally in response to being called an asshole or the "**** you"
that comes along sometimes. Also when comments are taken totally out of
context or simply falsely stated or attributed.

Why do you ask?



Why did you ask what year I retired?

I think you and I both entered the military at about the same year give
or take. I had some thoughts on what race relations were like at the
time but changed my mind about expressing them here.


I asked because there has been a notable change in your behavior
lately. You've gone from very respectable to very Toadish, in my
opinion. But, as you say, if I don't like it, "Tough ****."

I try (not always successfully) to treat people with the same degree of
respect that they afford me. In fact, sometimes I've been accused of
being too respectful.

Your comment regarding Harry (above) is along those lines. The group in
general has taken it upon themselves to condemn him and, it seems,
anyone else who is willing to discuss anything with him. Some people
here try to control who can be addressed and who should not, according
to *their* relationship with others. I don't go for that.






You've tried to carry on discussions with Harry and he doesn't seem to
want to play along. You can't even get him to talk seriously about his
passions. Tell me you haven't noticed.

Ping: KC
 

On 11/24/2014 12:57 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/24/2014 12:37 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 12:16:31 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/24/2014 11:43 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 11:38:12 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/24/2014 11:28 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 10:17:52 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"

wrote:

On 11/24/2014 10:12 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sun, 23 Nov 2014 23:16:32 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"

wrote:


Scott, one of your posts this evening caused me to step back and
consider something.

You and I have exchanged barbs many times on this newsgroup and
disagree
about many things.

One thing I didn't realize however is how you apparently take
some of my
comments to heart. Believe it or not most of them are intended
to be
light-hearted but I now realize you may be taking them
personally and
seriously.

Maybe it's the other than the 'most' that might cause some hard
feelings.

It has never been my intent to cause you any anxiety or to make
you
uncomfortable in a lasting way. If I have, please accept my
sincere
apology.

Does this refer to 'most' of the time?

I enjoy lively debates and sometimes can get a little caustic.
It's nothing personal. It's the debate.




Those comments were directed to Scott. Not you.


They appear pretty public.

Forgot to ask, do debates cause you to personal attacks?



Occasionally in response to being called an asshole or the "**** you"
that comes along sometimes. Also when comments are taken totally
out of
context or simply falsely stated or attributed.

Why do you ask?



Why did you ask what year I retired?

I think you and I both entered the military at about the same year give
or take. I had some thoughts on what race relations were like at the
time but changed my mind about expressing them here.


I asked because there has been a notable change in your behavior
lately. You've gone from very respectable to very Toadish, in my
opinion. But, as you say, if I don't like it, "Tough ****."

I try (not always successfully) to treat people with the same degree of
respect that they afford me. In fact, sometimes I've been accused of
being too respectful.

Your comment regarding Harry (above) is along those lines. The group in
general has taken it upon themselves to condemn him and, it seems,
anyone else who is willing to discuss anything with him. Some people
here try to control who can be addressed and who should not, according
to *their* relationship with others. I don't go for that.


My comment Harry had nothing to do with your conversing with
Harry. I think it's funny at times, but don't give a rat's patootie
that you do so.

The comment had to do with your behavior, a comparison to Toad's
behavior.



I see. Wearing the badge today, huh?


Maybe he's doing his own study. ;-)

Ping: KC
 

On 11/24/2014 2:21 PM, Harrold wrote:
On 11/24/2014 12:16 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/24/2014 11:43 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 11:38:12 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/24/2014 11:28 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 10:17:52 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/24/2014 10:12 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sun, 23 Nov 2014 23:16:32 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"

wrote:


Scott, one of your posts this evening caused me to step back and
consider something.

You and I have exchanged barbs many times on this newsgroup and
disagree
about many things.

One thing I didn't realize however is how you apparently take
some of my
comments to heart. Believe it or not most of them are intended
to be
light-hearted but I now realize you may be taking them personally
and
seriously.

Maybe it's the other than the 'most' that might cause some hard
feelings.

It has never been my intent to cause you any anxiety or to make you
uncomfortable in a lasting way. If I have, please accept my
sincere
apology.

Does this refer to 'most' of the time?

I enjoy lively debates and sometimes can get a little caustic.
It's nothing personal. It's the debate.




Those comments were directed to Scott. Not you.


They appear pretty public.

Forgot to ask, do debates cause you to personal attacks?



Occasionally in response to being called an asshole or the "**** you"
that comes along sometimes. Also when comments are taken totally
out of
context or simply falsely stated or attributed.

Why do you ask?



Why did you ask what year I retired?

I think you and I both entered the military at about the same year give
or take. I had some thoughts on what race relations were like at the
time but changed my mind about expressing them here.


I asked because there has been a notable change in your behavior
lately. You've gone from very respectable to very Toadish, in my
opinion. But, as you say, if I don't like it, "Tough ****."

I try (not always successfully) to treat people with the same degree of
respect that they afford me. In fact, sometimes I've been accused of
being too respectful.

Your comment regarding Harry (above) is along those lines. The group in
general has taken it upon themselves to condemn him and, it seems,
anyone else who is willing to discuss anything with him. Some people
here try to control who can be addressed and who should not, according
to *their* relationship with others. I don't go for that.






You've tried to carry on discussions with Harry and he doesn't seem to
want to play along. You can't even get him to talk seriously about his
passions. Tell me you haven't noticed.


I have little interest in Harry's passions.

Ping: KC
 

On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 14:06:07 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/24/2014 1:17 PM, Poco Loco wrote:

On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 12:46:50 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


So, let's say there are no required records but the government bans
guns. What are you going to do about it? Not much.



But I'll still have the guns about which the government knows nothing.


For what? You can't go to the range anymore. You can't go hunting
squirrels or whatever it is you eat for dinner. If you get caught
outside with your gun you'll be arrested and the gun will be confiscated.

What's the purpose of the gun then? To fend off the U.S. Army?

There's no infringement on your rights by being required to register a
gun, as I see it. It may start to help control who gets them when you
decide to sell them, two or three owners down the line.


For the insurrection and protection.