PDA

View Full Version : New and Fun


Jim
September 24th 04, 01:28 AM
Is there any music out there? Life,this election,politics is all nasty. I
did a terrible thing yesterday. I went to consumption junction.com and
watched that beheading video.
I knew I shouldnt..but I did it. Curiousity killed the cat thing. I couldnt
sleep. I'm bothered. My girlfriend knew better..she left the house for work
and told me NOT to watch it. She was right. It was terrible. That poor man
and his family. I'm haunted by it. I cant imagine the pain his family has to
go through for a lifetime.

Jim

Rural living is good living
September 24th 04, 05:25 AM
>I say we waste them all anyway as they are really ****ing me off.

I have no problem with you going over there and wasting them all in the name of
John Hanson. However, to say that 10,000s of U.S. military should die because
you are ****ed off it plain nutty.

Tired of corrupt politicians and busybodies trying to run your life, family,
and property? Want real freedom?
Visit http://www.freestateproject.com

John Hanson
September 24th 04, 05:42 AM
On 24 Sep 2004 04:25:49 GMT, (Rural
living is good living) wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

>>I say we waste them all anyway as they are really ****ing me off.
>
>I have no problem with you going over there and wasting them all in the name of
>John Hanson. However, to say that 10,000s of U.S. military should die because
>you are ****ed off it plain nutty.
>
But we have nukes that we spent billions on.

John M. Williams
September 24th 04, 06:19 AM
"Jim" > wrote:>
>"John Hanson" > wrote:.
>> "Jim" > wrote:
>> >"John Hanson" > wrote:
>> >> "Jim" > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >I knew Tim McVeigh. grew up with him..he was almost family. I'm
>> >> >****ing serious. His parents and mine were good friends. They
>> >> >were all GM workers and bowled together. We use to drink pepsi
>> >> >and eat salt and vinegar chips.
>> >> >
>> >> No ****. His sister is hot!
>> >
>> >Yep..and I didnt like her because she defended her brother. He killed
>> >innocent children.
>> >
>> The most liberal friend I have (should say had as I never see him
>> anymore) said that he would have become a hero if he would have blew
>> that building up either 12 hours earlier or 12 hours later (i.e.
>> nobody in the building).
>
>Of course..thats what Ann Coulter said too. Damn..its good to be a Democrat.
>At least we have a soul.

Then you probably prefer Ted Kaczynski. Take the quiz, Jim:

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/ken_crossman/Gore.htm

Jim
September 24th 04, 06:21 AM
"John Hanson" > wrote in message
...
>> And I say he is wrong too. But, the guy I mentioned thought he was on
> the right track and he's a Democrat...and 10 years older than me. So
> how can you say that Democrats have a soul?
>

Because we do..vote for Kerry now or forever hold your peace. Im getting
very active. My truck is a rolling Kerry billboard. Vote Kerry!!!

Jim

Jim
September 24th 04, 06:29 AM
"John M. Williams" > wrote in message
...
> "Jim" > wrote:>
> >"John Hanson" > wrote:.
> >> "Jim" > wrote:
> >> >"John Hanson" > wrote:
> >> >> "Jim" > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >I knew Tim McVeigh. grew up with him..he was almost family. I'm
> >> >> >****ing serious. His parents and mine were good friends. They
> >> >> >were all GM workers and bowled together. We use to drink pepsi
> >> >> >and eat salt and vinegar chips.
> >> >> >
> >> >> No ****. His sister is hot!
> >> >
> >> >Yep..and I didnt like her because she defended her brother. He killed
> >> >innocent children.
> >> >
> >> The most liberal friend I have (should say had as I never see him
> >> anymore) said that he would have become a hero if he would have blew
> >> that building up either 12 hours earlier or 12 hours later (i.e.
> >> nobody in the building).
> >
> >Of course..thats what Ann Coulter said too. Damn..its good to be a
Democrat.
> >At least we have a soul.
>
> Then you probably prefer Ted Kaczynski. Take the quiz, Jim:


Why should I bother..it is already against me. Dont worry..Bush will win.

Jim

John Hanson
September 24th 04, 06:29 AM
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 01:21:14 -0400, "Jim" > wrote
in misc.fitness.weights:

>
>"John Hanson" > wrote in message
...
>>> And I say he is wrong too. But, the guy I mentioned thought he was on
>> the right track and he's a Democrat...and 10 years older than me. So
>> how can you say that Democrats have a soul?
>>
>
>Because we do..vote for Kerry now or forever hold your peace. Im getting
>very active. My truck is a rolling Kerry billboard. Vote Kerry!!!
>
So, are you in favor of blowing up government buildings but only on
off hours? Is that what you are saying?

Jim
September 24th 04, 06:32 AM
"John Hanson" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 01:21:14 -0400, "Jim" > wrote
> in misc.fitness.weights:
>
> >
> >"John Hanson" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>> And I say he is wrong too. But, the guy I mentioned thought he was on
> >> the right track and he's a Democrat...and 10 years older than me. So
> >> how can you say that Democrats have a soul?
> >>
> >
> >Because we do..vote for Kerry now or forever hold your peace. Im getting
> >very active. My truck is a rolling Kerry billboard. Vote Kerry!!!
> >
> So, are you in favor of blowing up government buildings but only on
> off hours? Is that what you are saying?
>

I am in favor of having a president who has a brain. I'm not the smartest
guy in the world but I do have my **** together. I want a president who is
at least as smart as me.

Jim

Jim
September 24th 04, 06:39 AM
"John Hanson" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 01:21:14 -0400, "Jim" > wrote
> in misc.fitness.weights:
>
> >
> >"John Hanson" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>> And I say he is wrong too. But, the guy I mentioned thought he was on
> >> the right track and he's a Democrat...and 10 years older than me. So
> >> how can you say that Democrats have a soul?
> >>
> >
> >Because we do..vote for Kerry now or forever hold your peace. Im getting
> >very active. My truck is a rolling Kerry billboard. Vote Kerry!!!
> >
> So, are you in favor of blowing up government buildings but only on
> off hours? Is that what you are saying?
>

NO!...I'm saying Ann Coulter is a total nutcase...listen to her..Really!

Jim

John Hanson
September 24th 04, 06:43 AM
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 01:32:41 -0400, "Jim" > wrote
in misc.fitness.weights:

>
>"John Hanson" > wrote in message
...
>> On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 01:21:14 -0400, "Jim" > wrote
>> in misc.fitness.weights:
>>
>> >
>> >"John Hanson" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >>> And I say he is wrong too. But, the guy I mentioned thought he was on
>> >> the right track and he's a Democrat...and 10 years older than me. So
>> >> how can you say that Democrats have a soul?
>> >>
>> >
>> >Because we do..vote for Kerry now or forever hold your peace. Im getting
>> >very active. My truck is a rolling Kerry billboard. Vote Kerry!!!
>> >
>> So, are you in favor of blowing up government buildings but only on
>> off hours? Is that what you are saying?
>>
>
>I am in favor of having a president who has a brain. I'm not the smartest
>guy in the world but I do have my **** together. I want a president who is
>at least as smart as me.
>
We all know what a dumb**** you are Jim. What I want to know is why
you are in favor of blowing up government buildings when they are
unoccupied.

John Hanson
September 24th 04, 06:48 AM
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 01:39:06 -0400, "Jim" > wrote
in misc.fitness.weights:

>
>"John Hanson" > wrote in message
...
>> On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 01:21:14 -0400, "Jim" > wrote
>> in misc.fitness.weights:
>>
>> >
>> >"John Hanson" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >>> And I say he is wrong too. But, the guy I mentioned thought he was on
>> >> the right track and he's a Democrat...and 10 years older than me. So
>> >> how can you say that Democrats have a soul?
>> >>
>> >
>> >Because we do..vote for Kerry now or forever hold your peace. Im getting
>> >very active. My truck is a rolling Kerry billboard. Vote Kerry!!!
>> >
>> So, are you in favor of blowing up government buildings but only on
>> off hours? Is that what you are saying?
>>
>
>NO!...I'm saying Ann Coulter is a total nutcase...listen to her..Really!
>
So my liberal Democrat friend is also a nutcase then. So, it would be
reasonable to conclude that my friend is a nutcase. From that, we
can conclude that liberal Democrats are nutcases, right?

Tiger Hillside
September 24th 04, 01:06 PM
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 00:05:32 -0400, John M. Williams
> wrote:

[snip]

>Fortunately, we imprison or kill our terrorists, rather than condoning
>their actions. The Muslim world could learn from that. For instance,
>I know that you agree with many of things that Timothy McVeigh
>believed in, but I think you would agree that he was executed much too
>humanely for what he did. I would imagine that even some of our
>soft-hearted, eco-friendly tree-huggers think that Ted Kaczynski
>should be put down, too.

I am unhappy that McVeigh was killed. I think he knew things we would
like to know. And there is no longer any opportunity to find out. That
was not a two man operation.

Tiger Hillside
September 24th 04, 01:10 PM
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 23:49:55 -0500, John Hanson
> wrote:

[snip]

>The most liberal friend I have (should say had as I never see him
>anymore) said that he would have become a hero if he would have blew
>that building up either 12 hours earlier or 12 hours later (i.e.
>nobody in the building).

I don't know what your friend said, but I do think that lots of people
would have called McVeigh a hero had he done it when no one was there.
I would not have considered him such, but would have. And since we are
on the topic I always wonder why people are so incensed about Waco and
remember it, but no one speaks up about the police bombing the MOVE
building in Philadelphia. I think it was because the Branch people
were white and Christian.

AleX
September 24th 04, 02:34 PM
Justin Case > wrote:

> I hope when/if bush gets re-elected he says enough enough of this **** &
> lets 'em tear the hell out that place.

And then let's invade another country and bring them Freedom.
And when they don't like it, let's bomb them into ground. And
so on.

---
Signature has been removed to save disk space.

AleX
September 24th 04, 02:35 PM
John Hanson > wrote:

>>>I say we waste them all anyway as they are really ****ing me off.

>>I have no problem with you going over there and wasting them all in the name of
>>John Hanson. However, to say that 10,000s of U.S. military should die because
>>you are ****ed off it plain nutty.

> But we have nukes that we spent billions on.

You still don't get it, gunhead...

---
Signature has been removed to save disk space.

Proton Soup
September 24th 04, 04:12 PM
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 23:38:14 -0500, John Hanson
> wrote:

>
>Absolutely. Timothy McVeigh and I were ****ed about the Waco thing
>for different reasons though. I am ****ed that:
>
>-The feds went in for a state crime.
>
>-That they invited the media to the assault to show "their power" to
>the rest of the country (militias really, that were more of a symbolic
>group of organizations that were formed as a defense of the 2nd
>amendment(BTW, I've never been in a militia nor have I ever known
>anyone who was)).
>
>-The local cops could have arrested David Koresh at the local 7-11
>that he frequented everyday without incident. A bunch of kids
>wouldn't have died that way.

Some guys go out and buy a shiny red sports car in midlife. BATF
agents kill women and children.

>Have you heard about McVeigh's ties to al Queda? The Philippines
>thing?

I remember reading about a middle eastern connection at the time.
Don't remember anything specific about al Quaida, but then, they
weren't so famous back then. There was this one female reporter that
said she kept trying to give evidence to the feds about the middle
eastern connection but that they kept ignoring her. Not sure what
ever became of that.

-----------
Proton Soup

"Homo sapiens non urinat in ventum."

Proton Soup
September 24th 04, 04:15 PM
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 09:35:16 -0400 (EDT), AleX
> wrote:

>John Hanson > wrote:
>
>>>>I say we waste them all anyway as they are really ****ing me off.
>
>>>I have no problem with you going over there and wasting them all in the name of
>>>John Hanson. However, to say that 10,000s of U.S. military should die because
>>>you are ****ed off it plain nutty.
>
>> But we have nukes that we spent billions on.
>
>You still don't get it, gunhead...

Actually, our tritium production has ground to a halt, and we need to
use them before they pass their expiration date.

-----------
Proton Soup

"Homo sapiens non urinat in ventum."

John Hanson
September 24th 04, 04:48 PM
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 10:12:48 -0500, Proton Soup >
wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

>On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 23:38:14 -0500, John Hanson
> wrote:
>
>>
>>Absolutely. Timothy McVeigh and I were ****ed about the Waco thing
>>for different reasons though. I am ****ed that:
>>
>>-The feds went in for a state crime.
>>
>>-That they invited the media to the assault to show "their power" to
>>the rest of the country (militias really, that were more of a symbolic
>>group of organizations that were formed as a defense of the 2nd
>>amendment(BTW, I've never been in a militia nor have I ever known
>>anyone who was)).
>>
>>-The local cops could have arrested David Koresh at the local 7-11
>>that he frequented everyday without incident. A bunch of kids
>>wouldn't have died that way.
>
>Some guys go out and buy a shiny red sports car in midlife. BATF
>agents kill women and children.
>
>>Have you heard about McVeigh's ties to al Queda? The Philippines
>>thing?
>
>I remember reading about a middle eastern connection at the time.
>Don't remember anything specific about al Quaida, but then, they
>weren't so famous back then. There was this one female reporter that
>said she kept trying to give evidence to the feds about the middle
>eastern connection but that they kept ignoring her. Not sure what
>ever became of that.
>
I just heard her on the radio earlier this summer. I didn't get to
hear it all but she named John Doe #2 and said he was Hussain
al-Hussaini. She also talked about how Terry Nichols met with al
Queda leaders in the Philippines while he was living there. Very
interesting stuff.

John M. Williams
September 24th 04, 06:19 PM
Tiger Hillside > wrote:

> John Hanson > wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>>The most liberal friend I have (should say had as I never see him
>>anymore) said that he would have become a hero if he would have blew
>>that building up either 12 hours earlier or 12 hours later (i.e.
>>nobody in the building).
>
>I don't know what your friend said, but I do think that lots of people
>would have called McVeigh a hero had he done it when no one was there.
>I would not have considered him such, but would have. And since we are
>on the topic I always wonder why people are so incensed about Waco and
>remember it, but no one speaks up about the police bombing the MOVE
>building in Philadelphia. I think it was because the Branch people
>were white and Christian.

Wrong. Go to Google and plug in "move bombing philadelphia 1985" and
you'll get many, many links. Most of the rants are from leftist
websites. Big surprise. Leftists rant about government attacks on
the homes of leftist radicals; rightists rant about government attacks
on the homes of rightist radicals.

You extrapolate upon your personal frustration. Just because many, if
not most, in MFW don't agree with your political positions, it doesn't
mean that "no one" does.

bc
September 24th 04, 09:20 PM
"Jim" > wrote in message >...
> "John Hanson" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 01:21:14 -0400, "Jim" > wrote
> > in misc.fitness.weights:
> >
> > >
> > >"John Hanson" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >>> And I say he is wrong too. But, the guy I mentioned thought he was on
> > >> the right track and he's a Democrat...and 10 years older than me. So
> > >> how can you say that Democrats have a soul?
> > >>
> > >
> > >Because we do..vote for Kerry now or forever hold your peace. Im getting
> > >very active. My truck is a rolling Kerry billboard. Vote Kerry!!!
> > >
> > So, are you in favor of blowing up government buildings but only on
> > off hours? Is that what you are saying?
> >
>
> I am in favor of having a president who has a brain. I'm not the smartest
> guy in the world but I do have my **** together. I want a president who is
> at least as smart as me.

Um, that's actually, "at least as smart as I."

- bc (just pointing out a potentially funny thing here)

Will Brink
September 24th 04, 09:57 PM
In article >,
AleX > wrote:

> Justin Case > wrote:
>
> > I hope when/if bush gets re-elected he says enough enough of this **** &
> > lets 'em tear the hell out that place.
>
> And then let's invade another country and bring them Freedom.
> And when they don't like it, let's bomb them into ground. And
> so on.

Sounds like a plan!

>
> ---
> Signature has been removed to save disk space.
>

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

MJL
September 25th 04, 05:03 PM
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 20:28:37 -0400, "Jim" > wrote:

>Is there any music out there? Life,this election,politics is all nasty. I
>did a terrible thing yesterday. I went to consumption junction.com and
>watched that beheading video.
>I knew I shouldnt..but I did it. Curiousity killed the cat thing. I couldnt
>sleep. I'm bothered. My girlfriend knew better..she left the house for work
>and told me NOT to watch it. She was right. It was terrible. That poor man
>and his family. I'm haunted by it. I cant imagine the pain his family has to
>go through for a lifetime.
>
>Jim
>

What if it is just a hollywood produced sham?

Would you feel manipulated? Would you feel better? Always question.


--
http://www.texansfortruth.org/

Will Brink
September 26th 04, 06:00 PM
In article >,
Tiger Hillside > wrote:


> >> Today, without a socially acceptable place for them they have to go to
> >> elsewhere. More will become criminals than in the past. So we see more
> >> crime by those kinds of people and wonder what we have done as a
> >> society to cause it. In fact we have made things more difficult for
> >> them.
> >
> >Yet another reason to carry a gun!
>
> Really?

Yes, really.

>You think you can out-do a sadistic psychopath by using more
> violence?

Of course, and data shows it happens more often then most people
realize. What, you think you can talk said killer out of killing you?
Talk nice nice to him?

>Seems to me that individual violence was not the solution to
> the problem at all.

Really? You know of another way to stop said sadistic psychopath from
killing you? Do tell.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

Lee Michaels
September 26th 04, 06:10 PM
"Will Brink" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Tiger Hillside > wrote:
>
>
> > >> Today, without a socially acceptable place for them they have to go
to
> > >> elsewhere. More will become criminals than in the past. So we see
more
> > >> crime by those kinds of people and wonder what we have done as a
> > >> society to cause it. In fact we have made things more difficult for
> > >> them.
> > >
> > >Yet another reason to carry a gun!
> >
> > Really?
>
> Yes, really.
>
> >You think you can out-do a sadistic psychopath by using more
> > violence?
>
> Of course, and data shows it happens more often then most people
> realize. What, you think you can talk said killer out of killing you?
> Talk nice nice to him?
>
> >Seems to me that individual violence was not the solution to
> > the problem at all.
>
> Really? You know of another way to stop said sadistic psychopath from
> killing you? Do tell.
>
The plush tiger toy would bore him to death with his drivel and bull****.

John M. Williams
September 26th 04, 06:26 PM
"Lee Michaels" > wrote:
>
>"Will Brink" > wrote:
>>
>> Tiger Hillside > wrote:
>>>
>> >
>> >Seems to me that individual violence was not the solution to
>> > the problem at all.
>>
>> Really? You know of another way to stop said sadistic psychopath from
>> killing you? Do tell.
>>
>The plush tiger toy would bore him to death with his drivel and bull****.

"Hugs for the psycho killer! Calm down, friend. You're good enough;
you're smart enough; and people like you!"

Will Brink
September 26th 04, 07:12 PM
In article <[email protected]_s52>,
"Lee Michaels" > wrote:

> "Will Brink" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > Tiger Hillside > wrote:
> >
> >
> > > >> Today, without a socially acceptable place for them they have to go
> to
> > > >> elsewhere. More will become criminals than in the past. So we see
> more
> > > >> crime by those kinds of people and wonder what we have done as a
> > > >> society to cause it. In fact we have made things more difficult for
> > > >> them.
> > > >
> > > >Yet another reason to carry a gun!
> > >
> > > Really?
> >
> > Yes, really.
> >
> > >You think you can out-do a sadistic psychopath by using more
> > > violence?
> >
> > Of course, and data shows it happens more often then most people
> > realize. What, you think you can talk said killer out of killing you?
> > Talk nice nice to him?
> >
> > >Seems to me that individual violence was not the solution to
> > > the problem at all.
> >
> > Really? You know of another way to stop said sadistic psychopath from
> > killing you? Do tell.
> >
> The plush tiger toy would bore him to death with his drivel and bull****.

Anyone so stupid as to say "you think you can out-do a sadistic
psychopath by using more violence?" must live on another planet.


>
>
>

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

Anna Martelli Ravenscroft
September 26th 04, 09:10 PM
John M. Williams wrote:
> "Lee Michaels" > wrote:
>
>>"Will Brink" > wrote:
>>
>>> Tiger Hillside > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Seems to me that individual violence was not the solution to
>>>>the problem at all.
>>>
>>>Really? You know of another way to stop said sadistic psychopath from
>>>killing you? Do tell.
>>>
>>
>>The plush tiger toy would bore him to death with his drivel and bull****.
>
>
> "Hugs for the psycho killer! Calm down, friend. You're good enough;
> you're smart enough; and people like you!"

No nonono... It's "You're good enough, you're smart enough and DARN IT,
people just like you!"

Anna

MJL
September 27th 04, 12:47 AM
On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 16:54:06 -0500, Proton Soup >
wrote:


>But to be fair, I guess we should give you a chance here. Under what
>sorts of situations would you recommend that people be submissive when
>they are subjected to violence?
>

Thanks for noticing that I didn't actually say anything.


--
http://www.texansfortruth.org/

John M. Williams
September 27th 04, 01:13 AM
MJL > wrote:
> Proton Soup > wrote:
>
>>But to be fair, I guess we should give you a chance here. Under what
>>sorts of situations would you recommend that people be submissive when
>>they are subjected to violence?
>
>Thanks for noticing that I didn't actually say anything.

Par for the course.

Tiger Hillside
September 27th 04, 03:39 AM
On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 13:00:02 -0400, Will Brink
> wrote:

>In article >,
> Tiger Hillside > wrote:
>
>
>> >> Today, without a socially acceptable place for them they have to go to
>> >> elsewhere. More will become criminals than in the past. So we see more
>> >> crime by those kinds of people and wonder what we have done as a
>> >> society to cause it. In fact we have made things more difficult for
>> >> them.
>> >
>> >Yet another reason to carry a gun!
>>
>> Really?
>
>Yes, really.
>
>>You think you can out-do a sadistic psychopath by using more
>> violence?
>
>Of course, and data shows it happens more often then most people
>realize.

I would love to see that data. Remember, the issue here is sadistic
psychopaths, not general crime.

>What, you think you can talk said killer out of killing you?
>Talk nice nice to him?

I find it kind of odd that you think that those are the only two
options.

>>Seems to me that individual violence was not the solution to
>> the problem at all.
>
>Really? You know of another way to stop said sadistic psychopath from
>killing you? Do tell.

Yes. Putting them in mental homes. Having a safe orderly society based
on law so the psychopaths stand out from the general population. One
of the keys would be the willingness to use individual determination
to use violence to achieve personal ends. That is generally suspicious
behavior.

Tiger Hillside
September 27th 04, 03:40 AM
On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 14:12:54 -0400, Will Brink
> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]_s52>,
> "Lee Michaels" > wrote:
>
>> "Will Brink" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >,
>> > Tiger Hillside > wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > > >> Today, without a socially acceptable place for them they have to go
>> to
>> > > >> elsewhere. More will become criminals than in the past. So we see
>> more
>> > > >> crime by those kinds of people and wonder what we have done as a
>> > > >> society to cause it. In fact we have made things more difficult for
>> > > >> them.
>> > > >
>> > > >Yet another reason to carry a gun!
>> > >
>> > > Really?
>> >
>> > Yes, really.
>> >
>> > >You think you can out-do a sadistic psychopath by using more
>> > > violence?
>> >
>> > Of course, and data shows it happens more often then most people
>> > realize. What, you think you can talk said killer out of killing you?
>> > Talk nice nice to him?
>> >
>> > >Seems to me that individual violence was not the solution to
>> > > the problem at all.
>> >
>> > Really? You know of another way to stop said sadistic psychopath from
>> > killing you? Do tell.
>> >
>> The plush tiger toy would bore him to death with his drivel and bull****.
>
>Anyone so stupid as to say "you think you can out-do a sadistic
>psychopath by using more violence?" must live on another planet.

Perhaps you had another idea for the gun then.

John M. Williams
September 27th 04, 03:49 AM
Tiger Hillside > wrote:
>
> Will Brink > wrote:
>>
>> Tiger Hillside > wrote:
>>>
>>> Seems to me that individual violence was not the solution to
>>> the problem at all.
>>
>>Really? You know of another way to stop said sadistic psychopath from
>>killing you? Do tell.
>
>Yes. Putting them in mental homes. Having a safe orderly society based
>on law so the psychopaths stand out from the general population. One
>of the keys would be the willingness to use individual determination
>to use violence to achieve personal ends. That is generally suspicious
>behavior.

Your ignorance of the functional realities of the criminal justice
system is quite stunning. I suspect the same is true of your
understanding of related psychopathologies.

Tiger Hillside
September 27th 04, 12:45 PM
On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 22:49:29 -0400, John M. Williams
> wrote:

>Tiger Hillside > wrote:
>>
>> Will Brink > wrote:
>>>
>>> Tiger Hillside > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Seems to me that individual violence was not the solution to
>>>> the problem at all.
>>>
>>>Really? You know of another way to stop said sadistic psychopath from
>>>killing you? Do tell.
>>
>>Yes. Putting them in mental homes. Having a safe orderly society based
>>on law so the psychopaths stand out from the general population. One
>>of the keys would be the willingness to use individual determination
>>to use violence to achieve personal ends. That is generally suspicious
>>behavior.
>
>Your ignorance of the functional realities of the criminal justice
>system is quite stunning. I suspect the same is true of your
>understanding of related psychopathologies.

Did I say that the world was perfect? That we had solved all of the
problems? I was asked if I had another way to solve the problem and I
gave one. That does not mean that I think that our current system is
the best of all possible systems. Try reading for comprehension before
you use person insults as a substitute for argument.

Will Brink
September 27th 04, 02:40 PM
In article >,
Tiger Hillside > wrote:


> >
> >Really? You know of another way to stop said sadistic psychopath from
> >killing you? Do tell.
>
> Yes. Putting them in mental homes. Having a safe orderly society based
> on law so the psychopaths stand out from the general population. One
> of the keys would be the willingness to use individual determination
> to use violence to achieve personal ends. That is generally suspicious
> behavior.

Instead of flaming you for being a moron, I am going to give you the
benefit of the doubt and assume we are talking about two different
issues here, one of prevention (via your comments about mental homes)
and one of defense when said nut has fallen through the cracks and is
attempting to kick your door in or force you into a car, etc to cut you
into little pieces. These are two different issues.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

Will Brink
September 27th 04, 02:49 PM
In article >,
John M. Williams > wrote:

> Tiger Hillside > wrote:
> >
> > Will Brink > wrote:
> >>
> >> Tiger Hillside > wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Seems to me that individual violence was not the solution to
> >>> the problem at all.
> >>
> >>Really? You know of another way to stop said sadistic psychopath from
> >>killing you? Do tell.
> >
> >Yes. Putting them in mental homes. Having a safe orderly society based
> >on law so the psychopaths stand out from the general population. One
> >of the keys would be the willingness to use individual determination
> >to use violence to achieve personal ends. That is generally suspicious
> >behavior.
>
> Your ignorance of the functional realities of the criminal justice
> system is quite stunning. I suspect the same is true of your
> understanding of related psychopathologies.

I find denial the strongest of human emotions John.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

John M. Williams
September 27th 04, 04:20 PM
Tiger Hillside > wrote:

> John M. Williams > wrote:
>
>>Tiger Hillside > wrote:
>>>
>>> Will Brink > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Tiger Hillside > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Seems to me that individual violence was not the solution to
>>>>> the problem at all.
>>>>
>>>>Really? You know of another way to stop said sadistic psychopath from
>>>>killing you? Do tell.
>>>
>>>Yes. Putting them in mental homes. Having a safe orderly society based
>>>on law so the psychopaths stand out from the general population. One
>>>of the keys would be the willingness to use individual determination
>>>to use violence to achieve personal ends. That is generally suspicious
>>>behavior.
>>
>>Your ignorance of the functional realities of the criminal justice
>>system is quite stunning. I suspect the same is true of your
>>understanding of related psychopathologies.
>
>Did I say that the world was perfect? That we had solved all of the
>problems? I was asked if I had another way to solve the problem and I
>gave one. That does not mean that I think that our current system is
>the best of all possible systems. Try reading for comprehension before
>you use person insults as a substitute for argument.

Then let me restate my answer: your ignorance of criminal BEHAVIOR and
the underlying psychopatholgies is astounding. See? No "current
system" on which you can lay blame; just real people.

Tiger Hillside
September 27th 04, 05:22 PM
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 11:20:22 -0400, John M. Williams
> wrote:

>Tiger Hillside > wrote:
>
>> John M. Williams > wrote:
>>
>>>Tiger Hillside > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Will Brink > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Tiger Hillside > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Seems to me that individual violence was not the solution to
>>>>>> the problem at all.
>>>>>
>>>>>Really? You know of another way to stop said sadistic psychopath from
>>>>>killing you? Do tell.
>>>>
>>>>Yes. Putting them in mental homes. Having a safe orderly society based
>>>>on law so the psychopaths stand out from the general population. One
>>>>of the keys would be the willingness to use individual determination
>>>>to use violence to achieve personal ends. That is generally suspicious
>>>>behavior.
>>>
>>>Your ignorance of the functional realities of the criminal justice
>>>system is quite stunning. I suspect the same is true of your
>>>understanding of related psychopathologies.
>>
>>Did I say that the world was perfect? That we had solved all of the
>>problems? I was asked if I had another way to solve the problem and I
>>gave one. That does not mean that I think that our current system is
>>the best of all possible systems. Try reading for comprehension before
>>you use person insults as a substitute for argument.
>
>Then let me restate my answer: your ignorance of criminal BEHAVIOR and
>the underlying psychopatholgies is astounding. See? No "current
>system" on which you can lay blame; just real people.

So you think the way to deal with criminal behavior is individual
violence.

John M. Williams
September 27th 04, 06:09 PM
Tiger Hillside > wrote:

> John M. Williams > wrote:
>
>>Tiger Hillside > wrote:
>>
>>> John M. Williams > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Tiger Hillside > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Will Brink > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tiger Hillside > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Seems to me that individual violence was not the solution to
>>>>>>> the problem at all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Really? You know of another way to stop said sadistic psychopath from
>>>>>>killing you? Do tell.
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes. Putting them in mental homes. Having a safe orderly society based
>>>>>on law so the psychopaths stand out from the general population. One
>>>>>of the keys would be the willingness to use individual determination
>>>>>to use violence to achieve personal ends. That is generally suspicious
>>>>>behavior.
>>>>
>>>>Your ignorance of the functional realities of the criminal justice
>>>>system is quite stunning. I suspect the same is true of your
>>>>understanding of related psychopathologies.
>>>
>>>Did I say that the world was perfect? That we had solved all of the
>>>problems? I was asked if I had another way to solve the problem and I
>>>gave one. That does not mean that I think that our current system is
>>>the best of all possible systems. Try reading for comprehension before
>>>you use person insults as a substitute for argument.
>>
>>Then let me restate my answer: your ignorance of criminal BEHAVIOR and
>>the underlying psychopatholgies is astounding. See? No "current
>>system" on which you can lay blame; just real people.
>
>So you think the way to deal with criminal behavior is individual
>violence.

I think that violence is probably to optimal response to imminent and
unavoidable violent criminal behavior. The law recognizes this fact;
it is known as "self-defense" or "defense of others." As always, the
force applied should be reasonable under the circumstances. Still,
your naive idealism is great for salon chats, but it must necessarily
yield to realities recognized by those of us who deal with these
matters on a daily basis.

As to the mental health issues, those can be dealt with in a
therapeutic setting when the situation is stable, but in the midst of
violent criminal attack, the response must be as outlined above.

John M. Williams
September 27th 04, 06:18 PM
Tiger Hillside > wrote:

> Will Brink > wrote:
>
>> Tiger Hillside > wrote:
>>
>Did you have a reference for that data?
>>> >
>>> >Really? You know of another way to stop said sadistic psychopath from
>>> >killing you? Do tell.
>>>
>>> Yes. Putting them in mental homes. Having a safe orderly society based
>>> on law so the psychopaths stand out from the general population. One
>>> of the keys would be the willingness to use individual determination
>>> to use violence to achieve personal ends. That is generally suspicious
>>> behavior.
>>
>>Instead of flaming you for being a moron, I am going to give you the
>>benefit of the doubt and assume we are talking about two different
>>issues here, one of prevention (via your comments about mental homes)
>>and one of defense when said nut has fallen through the cracks and is
>>attempting to kick your door in or force you into a car, etc to cut you
>>into little pieces. These are two different issues.
>
>You think so? Wow, what a notion. Yeah, I suppose some absolute moron
>would propose handing out flyers for mental homes as a way to deal
>with crimes in progress. But out side the simplistic caricatures of
>liberals by conservatives I have not met anyone like that. Yep, I was
>suggesting that prevention does a better job at dealing with a wide
>range of problems than does having a well armed populace. I would much
>rather not be in a dangerous situation than have enough weapons on
>hand to deal with a small number of unlikely occurrences.

You have provided absolutely no evidence whatsoever that you have an
effective preventitive solution for repetitive criminal behavior or
for criminal behavior based on severe psychopathologies. Assuming
that "there must be better way" does not make it so.

And before you start spouting the standard, knee-jerk platitudes about
"better jobs and better education," please note that those factors
have no significant effect on offenders in either of the subgroups
mentioned above.

Lee Michaels
September 27th 04, 06:41 PM
"John M. Williams" wrote
>
> As to the mental health issues, those can be dealt with in a
> therapeutic setting when the situation is stable, but in the midst of
> violent criminal attack, the response must be as outlined above.

But. bt, John, the wode eyed innocents would attempt to initiate a therapy
session DURING the attack.

Tiger Hillside
September 27th 04, 06:56 PM
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 13:09:43 -0400, John M. Williams
> wrote:

>Tiger Hillside > wrote:
>
>> John M. Williams > wrote:
>>
>>>Tiger Hillside > wrote:
>>>
>>>> John M. Williams > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Tiger Hillside > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Will Brink > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tiger Hillside > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Seems to me that individual violence was not the solution to
>>>>>>>> the problem at all.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Really? You know of another way to stop said sadistic psychopath from
>>>>>>>killing you? Do tell.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yes. Putting them in mental homes. Having a safe orderly society based
>>>>>>on law so the psychopaths stand out from the general population. One
>>>>>>of the keys would be the willingness to use individual determination
>>>>>>to use violence to achieve personal ends. That is generally suspicious
>>>>>>behavior.
>>>>>
>>>>>Your ignorance of the functional realities of the criminal justice
>>>>>system is quite stunning. I suspect the same is true of your
>>>>>understanding of related psychopathologies.
>>>>
>>>>Did I say that the world was perfect? That we had solved all of the
>>>>problems? I was asked if I had another way to solve the problem and I
>>>>gave one. That does not mean that I think that our current system is
>>>>the best of all possible systems. Try reading for comprehension before
>>>>you use person insults as a substitute for argument.
>>>
>>>Then let me restate my answer: your ignorance of criminal BEHAVIOR and
>>>the underlying psychopatholgies is astounding. See? No "current
>>>system" on which you can lay blame; just real people.
>>
>>So you think the way to deal with criminal behavior is individual
>>violence.
>
>I think that violence is probably to optimal response to imminent and
>unavoidable violent criminal behavior. The law recognizes this fact;
>it is known as "self-defense" or "defense of others."

Of course. The question was not that, the question was whether or not
the existence of psychopaths in our society was a reason to have a
gun. Not whether or not a gun is a good thing to have if a psychopath
attacks you.

> As always, the
>force applied should be reasonable under the circumstances. Still,
>your naive idealism is great for salon chats, but it must necessarily
>yield to realities recognized by those of us who deal with these
>matters on a daily basis.

Funny, I have never had to deal with a sadistic psychopath. You live a
much different life than I do.

>As to the mental health issues, those can be dealt with in a
>therapeutic setting when the situation is stable, but in the midst of
>violent criminal attack, the response must be as outlined above.

Who said anything different?

Adam Fahy
September 27th 04, 07:07 PM
Tiger Hillside wrote:

> Really? You think you can out-do a sadistic psychopath by using more
> violence? Seems to me that individual violence was not the solution to
> the problem at all.

It's absurd to suggest that self-defense is not a solution to situations
in which your safety is put in jeopardy.


-Adam

David Cohen
September 27th 04, 08:07 PM
"Tiger Hillside" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 13:09:43 -0400, John M. Williams
> > wrote:
>
> >Tiger Hillside > wrote:
> >
> >> John M. Williams > wrote:
> >>
> >>>Tiger Hillside > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> John M. Williams > wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>Tiger Hillside > wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Will Brink > wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Tiger Hillside > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Seems to me that individual violence was not the solution to
> >>>>>>>> the problem at all.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Really? You know of another way to stop said sadistic psychopath
from
> >>>>>>>killing you? Do tell.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Yes. Putting them in mental homes. Having a safe orderly society
based
> >>>>>>on law so the psychopaths stand out from the general population. One
> >>>>>>of the keys would be the willingness to use individual determination
> >>>>>>to use violence to achieve personal ends. That is generally
suspicious
> >>>>>>behavior.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Your ignorance of the functional realities of the criminal justice
> >>>>>system is quite stunning. I suspect the same is true of your
> >>>>>understanding of related psychopathologies.
> >>>>
> >>>>Did I say that the world was perfect? That we had solved all of the
> >>>>problems? I was asked if I had another way to solve the problem and I
> >>>>gave one. That does not mean that I think that our current system is
> >>>>the best of all possible systems. Try reading for comprehension before
> >>>>you use person insults as a substitute for argument.
> >>>
> >>>Then let me restate my answer: your ignorance of criminal BEHAVIOR and
> >>>the underlying psychopatholgies is astounding. See? No "current
> >>>system" on which you can lay blame; just real people.
> >>
> >>So you think the way to deal with criminal behavior is individual
> >>violence.
> >
> >I think that violence is probably to optimal response to imminent and
> >unavoidable violent criminal behavior. The law recognizes this fact;
> >it is known as "self-defense" or "defense of others."
>
> Of course. The question was not that, the question was whether or not
> the existence of psychopaths in our society was a reason to have a
> gun. Not whether or not a gun is a good thing to have if a psychopath
> attacks you.
>
> > As always, the
> >force applied should be reasonable under the circumstances. Still,
> >your naive idealism is great for salon chats, but it must necessarily
> >yield to realities recognized by those of us who deal with these
> >matters on a daily basis.
>
> Funny, I have never had to deal with a sadistic psychopath. You live a
> much different life than I do.

Funny how those who put sadistic psychopaths in prison, like John, or treat
their victims, like me, think you're an idiot. What might we know that you
don't?

David

Tiger Hillside
September 27th 04, 08:28 PM
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 19:07:29 GMT, "David Cohen"
> wrote:

>
>"Tiger Hillside" > wrote in message
...
>> On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 13:09:43 -0400, John M. Williams
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >Tiger Hillside > wrote:
>> >
>> >> John M. Williams > wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>Tiger Hillside > wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> John M. Williams > wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>Tiger Hillside > wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Will Brink > wrote:
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Tiger Hillside > wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Seems to me that individual violence was not the solution to
>> >>>>>>>> the problem at all.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>Really? You know of another way to stop said sadistic psychopath
>from
>> >>>>>>>killing you? Do tell.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>Yes. Putting them in mental homes. Having a safe orderly society
>based
>> >>>>>>on law so the psychopaths stand out from the general population. One
>> >>>>>>of the keys would be the willingness to use individual determination
>> >>>>>>to use violence to achieve personal ends. That is generally
>suspicious
>> >>>>>>behavior.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>Your ignorance of the functional realities of the criminal justice
>> >>>>>system is quite stunning. I suspect the same is true of your
>> >>>>>understanding of related psychopathologies.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>Did I say that the world was perfect? That we had solved all of the
>> >>>>problems? I was asked if I had another way to solve the problem and I
>> >>>>gave one. That does not mean that I think that our current system is
>> >>>>the best of all possible systems. Try reading for comprehension before
>> >>>>you use person insults as a substitute for argument.
>> >>>
>> >>>Then let me restate my answer: your ignorance of criminal BEHAVIOR and
>> >>>the underlying psychopatholgies is astounding. See? No "current
>> >>>system" on which you can lay blame; just real people.
>> >>
>> >>So you think the way to deal with criminal behavior is individual
>> >>violence.
>> >
>> >I think that violence is probably to optimal response to imminent and
>> >unavoidable violent criminal behavior. The law recognizes this fact;
>> >it is known as "self-defense" or "defense of others."
>>
>> Of course. The question was not that, the question was whether or not
>> the existence of psychopaths in our society was a reason to have a
>> gun. Not whether or not a gun is a good thing to have if a psychopath
>> attacks you.
>>
>> > As always, the
>> >force applied should be reasonable under the circumstances. Still,
>> >your naive idealism is great for salon chats, but it must necessarily
>> >yield to realities recognized by those of us who deal with these
>> >matters on a daily basis.
>>
>> Funny, I have never had to deal with a sadistic psychopath. You live a
>> much different life than I do.
>
>Funny how those who put sadistic psychopaths in prison, like John, or treat
>their victims, like me, think you're an idiot. What might we know that you
>don't?

Probably not much if the best you can do is call me an idiot. So far I
have seen mostly wild misunderstandings of what I have written. Do you
have anything besides name calling?

David Cohen
September 27th 04, 10:32 PM
"Tiger Hillside" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 19:07:29 GMT, "David Cohen"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Tiger Hillside" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 13:09:43 -0400, John M. Williams
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >Tiger Hillside > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> John M. Williams > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>>Tiger Hillside > wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> John M. Williams > wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>>Tiger Hillside > wrote:
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> Will Brink > wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> Tiger Hillside > wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> Seems to me that individual violence was not the solution to
> >> >>>>>>>> the problem at all.
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>Really? You know of another way to stop said sadistic psychopath
> >from
> >> >>>>>>>killing you? Do tell.
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>Yes. Putting them in mental homes. Having a safe orderly society
> >based
> >> >>>>>>on law so the psychopaths stand out from the general population.
One
> >> >>>>>>of the keys would be the willingness to use individual
determination
> >> >>>>>>to use violence to achieve personal ends. That is generally
> >suspicious
> >> >>>>>>behavior.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>Your ignorance of the functional realities of the criminal justice
> >> >>>>>system is quite stunning. I suspect the same is true of your
> >> >>>>>understanding of related psychopathologies.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>Did I say that the world was perfect? That we had solved all of the
> >> >>>>problems? I was asked if I had another way to solve the problem and
I
> >> >>>>gave one. That does not mean that I think that our current system
is
> >> >>>>the best of all possible systems. Try reading for comprehension
before
> >> >>>>you use person insults as a substitute for argument.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>Then let me restate my answer: your ignorance of criminal BEHAVIOR
and
> >> >>>the underlying psychopatholgies is astounding. See? No "current
> >> >>>system" on which you can lay blame; just real people.
> >> >>
> >> >>So you think the way to deal with criminal behavior is individual
> >> >>violence.
> >> >
> >> >I think that violence is probably to optimal response to imminent and
> >> >unavoidable violent criminal behavior. The law recognizes this fact;
> >> >it is known as "self-defense" or "defense of others."
> >>
> >> Of course. The question was not that, the question was whether or not
> >> the existence of psychopaths in our society was a reason to have a
> >> gun. Not whether or not a gun is a good thing to have if a psychopath
> >> attacks you.
> >>
> >> > As always, the
> >> >force applied should be reasonable under the circumstances. Still,
> >> >your naive idealism is great for salon chats, but it must necessarily
> >> >yield to realities recognized by those of us who deal with these
> >> >matters on a daily basis.
> >>
> >> Funny, I have never had to deal with a sadistic psychopath. You live a
> >> much different life than I do.
> >
> >Funny how those who put sadistic psychopaths in prison, like John, or
treat
> >their victims, like me, think you're an idiot. What might we know that
you
> >don't?
>
> Probably not much if the best you can do is call me an idiot. So far I
> have seen mostly wild misunderstandings of what I have written. Do you
> have anything besides name calling?

Beer and nachos. Come on over :)

David

Tiger Hillside
September 27th 04, 10:33 PM
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 21:32:14 GMT, "David Cohen"
> wrote:

>
>"Tiger Hillside" > wrote in message
...
>> On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 19:07:29 GMT, "David Cohen"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Tiger Hillside" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 13:09:43 -0400, John M. Williams
>> >> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Tiger Hillside > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> John M. Williams > wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>>Tiger Hillside > wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>> John M. Williams > wrote:
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>>Tiger Hillside > wrote:
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> Will Brink > wrote:
>> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>> Tiger Hillside > wrote:
>> >> >>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>> Seems to me that individual violence was not the solution to
>> >> >>>>>>>> the problem at all.
>> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>Really? You know of another way to stop said sadistic psychopath
>> >from
>> >> >>>>>>>killing you? Do tell.
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>Yes. Putting them in mental homes. Having a safe orderly society
>> >based
>> >> >>>>>>on law so the psychopaths stand out from the general population.
>One
>> >> >>>>>>of the keys would be the willingness to use individual
>determination
>> >> >>>>>>to use violence to achieve personal ends. That is generally
>> >suspicious
>> >> >>>>>>behavior.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>Your ignorance of the functional realities of the criminal justice
>> >> >>>>>system is quite stunning. I suspect the same is true of your
>> >> >>>>>understanding of related psychopathologies.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>Did I say that the world was perfect? That we had solved all of the
>> >> >>>>problems? I was asked if I had another way to solve the problem and
>I
>> >> >>>>gave one. That does not mean that I think that our current system
>is
>> >> >>>>the best of all possible systems. Try reading for comprehension
>before
>> >> >>>>you use person insults as a substitute for argument.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>Then let me restate my answer: your ignorance of criminal BEHAVIOR
>and
>> >> >>>the underlying psychopatholgies is astounding. See? No "current
>> >> >>>system" on which you can lay blame; just real people.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>So you think the way to deal with criminal behavior is individual
>> >> >>violence.
>> >> >
>> >> >I think that violence is probably to optimal response to imminent and
>> >> >unavoidable violent criminal behavior. The law recognizes this fact;
>> >> >it is known as "self-defense" or "defense of others."
>> >>
>> >> Of course. The question was not that, the question was whether or not
>> >> the existence of psychopaths in our society was a reason to have a
>> >> gun. Not whether or not a gun is a good thing to have if a psychopath
>> >> attacks you.
>> >>
>> >> > As always, the
>> >> >force applied should be reasonable under the circumstances. Still,
>> >> >your naive idealism is great for salon chats, but it must necessarily
>> >> >yield to realities recognized by those of us who deal with these
>> >> >matters on a daily basis.
>> >>
>> >> Funny, I have never had to deal with a sadistic psychopath. You live a
>> >> much different life than I do.
>> >
>> >Funny how those who put sadistic psychopaths in prison, like John, or
>treat
>> >their victims, like me, think you're an idiot. What might we know that
>you
>> >don't?
>>
>> Probably not much if the best you can do is call me an idiot. So far I
>> have seen mostly wild misunderstandings of what I have written. Do you
>> have anything besides name calling?
>
>Beer and nachos. Come on over :)

Well, when you figure out an argument, let me know.

Tiger Hillside
September 27th 04, 10:46 PM
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 18:07:51 GMT, Adam Fahy >
wrote:

>Tiger Hillside wrote:
>
>> Really? You think you can out-do a sadistic psychopath by using more
>> violence? Seems to me that individual violence was not the solution to
>> the problem at all.
>
>It's absurd to suggest that self-defense is not a solution to situations
>in which your safety is put in jeopardy.

I did not in any way suggest that self-defense was not appropriate. If
you have the context you would see that I was surprised that the
existence of psychotics was seen as a good argument for gun
possession. It sure seems to me that there are very few psychotics and
lots of opportunities for gun accidents. There may well be other
arguments for gun possession, but that was not one of them.

Will Brink
September 27th 04, 10:51 PM
In article <[email protected]>,
Adam Fahy > wrote:

> Tiger Hillside wrote:
>
> > Really? You think you can out-do a sadistic psychopath by using more
> > violence? Seems to me that individual violence was not the solution to
> > the problem at all.
>
> It's absurd to suggest that self-defense is not a solution to situations
> in which your safety is put in jeopardy.

Though I know what you are trying to say (and you are right of course)
the statement is too general. Regarding the use of a fire arm:

1. Your concealed handgun is for protection of life only.

Draw it solely in preparation to protect yourself or an innocent third
party from the wrongful and life-threatening criminal actions of another.

2. Know exactly when you can use your gun.

A criminal adversary must have, or reasonably appear to have:

1. the ability to inflict serious bodily injury (he is armed or
reasonably appears to be armed with a deadly weapon),

2.the opportunity to inflict serious bodily harm (he is physically
positioned to harm you with his weapon), and

3.his intent (hostile actions or words) indicates that he means to place
you in jeopardy -- to do you serious or fatal physical harm.
When all three of these "attack potential" elements are in place
simultaneously, then you are facing a reasonably perceived deadly threat
that can justify an emergency deadly force response.

3. If you can run away -- RUN!

Just because you're armed doesn't necessarily mean you must confront a
bad guy at gunpoint. Develop your "situation awareness" skills so you
can be alert to detect and avoid trouble altogether. Keep in mind that
if you successfully evade a potential confrontation, the single negative
consequence involved might be your bruised ego, which should heal with
mature rationalization. But if you force a confrontation you risk the
possibility of you or a family member being killed or suffering lifelong
crippling/disfiguring physical injury, criminal liability and/or
financial ruin from civil lawsuit. Flee if you can, fight only as a last
resort.

From: http://www.firearmstactical.com/

>
>
> -Adam

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

John M. Williams
September 27th 04, 10:52 PM
Tiger Hillside > wrote:

> John M. Williams > wrote:
>
>>Tiger Hillside > wrote:
>>
>>> John M. Williams > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Tiger Hillside > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> John M. Williams > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Tiger Hillside > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Will Brink > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Tiger Hillside > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Seems to me that individual violence was not the solution to
>>>>>>>>> the problem at all.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Really? You know of another way to stop said sadistic psychopath from
>>>>>>>>killing you? Do tell.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Yes. Putting them in mental homes. Having a safe orderly society based
>>>>>>>on law so the psychopaths stand out from the general population. One
>>>>>>>of the keys would be the willingness to use individual determination
>>>>>>>to use violence to achieve personal ends. That is generally suspicious
>>>>>>>behavior.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Your ignorance of the functional realities of the criminal justice
>>>>>>system is quite stunning. I suspect the same is true of your
>>>>>>understanding of related psychopathologies.
>>>>>
>>>>>Did I say that the world was perfect? That we had solved all of the
>>>>>problems? I was asked if I had another way to solve the problem and I
>>>>>gave one. That does not mean that I think that our current system is
>>>>>the best of all possible systems. Try reading for comprehension before
>>>>>you use person insults as a substitute for argument.
>>>>
>>>>Then let me restate my answer: your ignorance of criminal BEHAVIOR and
>>>>the underlying psychopatholgies is astounding. See? No "current
>>>>system" on which you can lay blame; just real people.
>>>
>>>So you think the way to deal with criminal behavior is individual
>>>violence.
>>
>>I think that violence is probably to optimal response to imminent and
>>unavoidable violent criminal behavior. The law recognizes this fact;
>>it is known as "self-defense" or "defense of others."
>
>Of course. The question was not that, the question was whether or not
>the existence of psychopaths in our society was a reason to have a
>gun. Not whether or not a gun is a good thing to have if a psychopath
>attacks you.

Are you implying that a disappearance of guns in society would result
in a concomitant disappearance of attacks by psychopaths? What planet
are you from?

>> As always, the
>>force applied should be reasonable under the circumstances. Still,
>>your naive idealism is great for salon chats, but it must necessarily
>>yield to realities recognized by those of us who deal with these
>>matters on a daily basis.
>
>Funny, I have never had to deal with a sadistic psychopath. You live a
>much different life than I do.

The fact that some people here *do* deal with such offenders reduces
the likelihood that you will need to do so. Perhaps your cloistered
environment is such that you need not recognize the hard realities to
which others are subjected. It's easy to be a soft-hearted liberal,
believing in the basic goodness of mankind, when you can isolate
yourself from the ugliness that you would prefer not to see.

Will Brink
September 27th 04, 10:57 PM
In article >,
Tiger Hillside > wrote:

> >
> >I think that violence is probably to optimal response to imminent and
> >unavoidable violent criminal behavior. The law recognizes this fact;
> >it is known as "self-defense" or "defense of others."
>
> Of course. The question was not that, the question was whether or not
> the existence of psychopaths in our society was a reason to have a
> gun. Not whether or not a gun is a good thing to have if a psychopath
> attacks you.

Yet the answer to both is yes, both are reasons to own and or carry a
gun.

>
> > As always, the
> >force applied should be reasonable under the circumstances. Still,
> >your naive idealism is great for salon chats, but it must necessarily
> >yield to realities recognized by those of us who deal with these
> >matters on a daily basis.
>
> Funny, I have never had to deal with a sadistic psychopath. You live a
> much different life than I do.

Exactly, yet Im always amazed to see the dpeth people will go to pretend
they can't or wont ever be faced with such a thing and worse, because
they have never had any experience, they fail to understand why others
demand the right to defend themselves. Denial is not a tactic.

>
> >As to the mental health issues, those can be dealt with in a
> >therapeutic setting when the situation is stable, but in the midst of
> >violent criminal attack, the response must be as outlined above.
>
> Who said anything different?

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

Will Brink
September 27th 04, 11:01 PM
In article t>,
"David Cohen" > wrote:

> >
> > Funny, I have never had to deal with a sadistic psychopath. You live a
> > much different life than I do.
>
> Funny how those who put sadistic psychopaths in prison, like John, or treat
> their victims, like me, think you're an idiot. What might we know that you
> don't?

That's a point I wanted to make. Everyone I know who has seen what
people can do to each other carry a gun on a regular basis. Most ER docs
I know carry, even though it's banned at the hospital. They have seen to
many nuts and so they would rather get fired then killed. Then of course
such things don't happen to nice people that live in safe places right?

Of course you heard about the two Dartmouth professors who were
murdered in N.H. Did you know they were not the first intended victims
of the two teen age murderers? It¹s very interesting to see what
happened to the intended victim and why. What¹s even more amazing to me,
is the fact you will never hear about in the main stream media

____________________

The Vershire Murder
by Robert Waters


In the dead-heat of a summer's night, two teenagers labored to dig a
grave near an abandoned home in Vershire, Vermont. Robert Tulloch and
James Parker had already targeted their victim, a homeowner who lived a
few blocks away. They'd never even met the man. But his house sat in a
prosperous-looking neighborhood on Goose Green Road, and the cars
outside were new and expensive. They planned to rob and kill him,
then bury him in the grave they'd prepared.

The two teens weren't satisfied with their upper middle class
existence. They needed money to go to Australia where they planned to
become "bad-asses," upper middle class slang for master criminals. Since
working for travel money was beneath them, they planned to steal the
money. According to later court testimony, "Tulloch raised the idea of
killing the people they attempted to steal from so that there would be
no witnesses to their crimes."

On the evening of July 19, the day after they dug the grave, the teens
dressed in black and armed themselves with Army knives, duct tape, and
zip ties. They drove to the home of their intended victim and cut
the telephone lines. Parker then hid in some bushes near the
house while Tulloch walked to the door and rang the doorbell.

They'd rehearsed for days. Now was the time to put their plan into
action. Tulloch planned to tell the homeowner that his car had broken
down.

He would ask to use the telephone and, once inside, would pull his
knife and subdue the victim. When all was clear, Parker would enter the
house and the two would force the man to give up his credit cards and
PIN numbers. Then they would kill him. If there were a wife and
children at home, so be It they'd have to die, too. "No
witnesses," Tulloch had said.

But when the intended victim answered the door, the master criminals
were surprised. He was obviously suspicious and held a handgun in plain
view.

Tulloch stammered out some lame excuse for interrupting the man, then
quickly left. Parker exited the bushes, tucked his tail between his
legs, and also fled.

Because the homeowner was armed, the Vershire murder didn't happen.

But a few days later, the Dartmouth murders did.

At noon, on July 27, 2001, Tulloch and Parker talked their way into the
home of Half (in German, Half means "help") and Suzanne Zantrop. They
brutally knifed the two Dartmouth professors to death, stealing $365.00
and credit cards. But as the master criminals fled the scene, they
forgot their knife sheaths. Police quickly identified them by
their fingerprints.

Tulloch and Parker were captured a month later. On April 4, 2002,
Tulloch pled guilty to two counts of first-degree murder and was
sentenced to life without parole. Parker plea-bargained his
charge down to second-degree murder and was given twenty-five
years.

Why did the unidentified Vershire homeowner survive? Because he had a
gun.

How many other intended victims are never attacked because they
displayed a firearm? (Note from Will, research shows about two million
times per year a crime is stopped or prevented because a law abiding
citizen with a gun simply display a gun)

When criminologists James D. Wright and Peter H. Rossi interviewed
convicted felons in ten state correctional systems, they found that
nearly sixty percent stated that they would not attack citizens
that they suspected were armed.

Guns save lives.

If not, this story would be about the Vershire murder instead of the
Dartmouth murders.

____________________

For more info, contact Dr. Michael S. Brown or Doctors for Sensible
Gun Laws, www.dsgl.org. E-mail: .




>
> David
>
>

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

John M. Williams
September 27th 04, 11:07 PM
Tiger Hillside > wrote:
>
> "David Cohen" > wrote:
>>
>>Funny how those who put sadistic psychopaths in prison, like John, or treat
>>their victims, like me, think you're an idiot. What might we know that you
>>don't?
>
>Probably not much if the best you can do is call me an idiot. So far I
>have seen mostly wild misunderstandings of what I have written. Do you
>have anything besides name calling?

You claim that people misunderstand what you have written, but you
don't clarify what you mean, preferring instead to ask rhetorical
questions. You get what you deserve.

Adam Fahy
September 28th 04, 12:10 AM
Tiger Hillside wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 18:07:51 GMT, Adam Fahy >
> wrote:
>
>>Tiger Hillside wrote:
>>
>>>Really? You think you can out-do a sadistic psychopath by using more
>>>violence? Seems to me that individual violence was not the solution to
>>>the problem at all.
>>
>>It's absurd to suggest that self-defense is not a solution to situations
>>in which your safety is put in jeopardy.
>
> I did not in any way suggest that self-defense was not appropriate.

If that were the case, you would not have said, "you think you can
out-do a sadistic psychopath by using more violence?" What you meant
might have been different than what you were indeed suggesting, but that
miscommunication falls on your shoulders; not on people who decided to
rebut.

-Adam

Will Brink
September 28th 04, 12:28 AM
In article >,
Tiger Hillside > wrote:

> On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 18:07:51 GMT, Adam Fahy >
> wrote:
>
> >Tiger Hillside wrote:
> >
> >> Really? You think you can out-do a sadistic psychopath by using more
> >> violence? Seems to me that individual violence was not the solution to
> >> the problem at all.
> >
> >It's absurd to suggest that self-defense is not a solution to situations
> >in which your safety is put in jeopardy.
>
> I did not in any way suggest that self-defense was not appropriate. If
> you have the context you would see that I was surprised that the
> existence of psychotics was seen as a good argument for gun
> possession.

It is a reason, not the only reason, and we all fail to see why you
should be surprised by that.

> It sure seems to me that there are very few psychotics and
> lots of opportunities for gun accidents.

"seems to me" means you are depending on emotions over facts.

> There may well be other
> arguments for gun possession, but that was not one of them.

Incorrect.


>
>

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

Will Brink
September 28th 04, 12:54 AM
In article >,
Tiger Hillside > wrote:

> On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 17:08:12 -0400, Will Brink
> > wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> > Tiger Hillside > wrote:

> >>But out side the simplistic caricatures of liberals by conservatives
> >
> >Vs the never occurring caricatures of conservative by liberals...
>
> I am talking about what I saw in this thread.

Exactly, and I am sure you have pegged me a conservative, which would be
false.

> If you see the other you
> can comment on them as well.
>
> >>I have not met anyone like that. Yep, I was
> >> suggesting that prevention does a better job at dealing with a wide
> >>range of problems than does having a well armed populace.
> >
> >But both works best as data and history have proven.
>
> About that data, where is it?

Already posted and easy to find.

>
> >The reality is
> >however is that an armed citizen is often the first and last line of
> >defense in saving their own life or that of another.
>
> Sufficiently vague as to be meaningless. There is no such direct
> correlation between general ownership of arms and civilian safety.

Wrong. It appears you have done zero research on the topic yet run your
mouth, which is rather typical with the "dont confuse us with the facts"
type of person. See below.

>
> >>I would much
> >> rather not be in a dangerous situation than have enough weapons on
> >> hand to deal with a small number of unlikely occurrences.
> >
> >And I would much rather not be in a dangerous situation but have the
> >means of defending myself should I find myself there. You're as naive as
> >they come,
>
> So people keep claiming, but they don't seem to back it up.

You have done that part for yourself for all to see.

>
> >but typical of people who think they can always control
> >dangerous situations.
>
> And your evidence that I have this position is what exactly?

Your posts stupid.

>
> >Again, history and data shows us this,
>
> You maybe, but you have not show me the appropriate data.

Ahh, well now we at least have an opening here and how you should have
started this vs stating there is no such data and so on.

>
> >but people
> >like yourself are willing to ignore it, and thus repeat it.
>
> I find it difficult to ignore data I have not seen.

But yet you make statement about the existance, or lack there of,
regarding said data.

>
> >"I became interested in the issues... called gun control and decided to
> >investigate the question with an open mind... To my dismay, I reached the
> >conclusion -- without any help from [gun rights groups] -- that good,
> >law-abiding people are being systematically disarmed." --HILLEL
> >GOLDSTEIN, SHOOTING VICTIM OF NEO-NAZI BENJAMIN SMITH
>
> Please show where I have advocated gun control.

Not the point sparky.

> >
> >> I can certainly envision a large number of circumstances where
> >>possession of a gun could prevent harm to me or mine.
> >
> >Which happens 700,000 times per year (FBI's data) to 2.5 million times
> >per year (Kleck's data).
>
> References please.

I just gave them. Now, what you may want to do is look up the
researchers (Kleck being one) and read the books, studies, etc. There
are volumes on this large topic, so you would have to narrow it down a
bit. For example:

[The Journal of Law and Economics, vol. XLIV (October 2001)]
(C) 2001 by The University of Chicago. 0022-2186/2001/4402-0018

RIGHT-TO-CARRY CONCEALED WEAPON LAWS AND HOMICIDE IN LARGE U.S.
COUNTIES: THE EFFECT ON WEAPON TYPES, VICTIM CHARACTERISTICS, AND
VICTIM-OFFENDER RELATIONSHIPS*

DAVID E. OLSON
Loyola University Chicago

MICHAEL D. MALTZ
University of Illinois at ChicagoABSTRACT

Recently, a number of states have enacted laws that allow citizens to
carry concealed weapons. This "natural experiment" was analyzed by John
Lott and David Mustard, who found that these right-to-carry laws reduced
violent crime, with a substitution toward property crimes, in those
jurisdictions that adopted this law. Of particular importance, they
found that homicide was reduced significantly, with even greater
declines in larger jurisdictions. Their findings came at the same time
that major reductions in homicide were occurring in many cities and
states that did not change their gun-carrying policies, which lead to
questions of whether their finding was spurious, caused by problems with
the data or methods. In this paper, we describe an analysis that looks
at the effect of changing one aspect of their homicide analysis:
disaggregating homicide data by weapon type, victim characteristics, and
victim-offender relationships. The results show that the liberalized
carrying laws are associated with a number of effects, some that are
consistent with those found by Lott and Mustard and others that are not.
It also illustrates the importance of being able to look beyond
aggregate crime measures in this type of examination, which is currently
possible on a national level only for the crime of homicide.


> >
> >>I can also
> >> envision a large number where the gun does nothing at all or where it
> >> causes more problems.
> >
> >Of course. Again you have to employ simple logic as EVERYTHING has a
> >risk to benefit ratio. Cars kill 40,000 people a year, 1000 plud kids
> >drowned in pools, and so on.
>
> I agree. So showing one side or the other does not do anything, you
> have to show both.

Of course, but anti gun groups only show the one side, where as pro gun
groups, as a rule, attempt to show both.


> >> I happen to think that a society were lots of people have guns and see
> >> them as appropriate ways to achieve their desired ends is a dangerous
> >>society.
> >
> >The "desired end" is to save your life. A society that does not follow
> >the rule of law is doomed to fail, which is nothing to do with this
> >conversation.
>
> And a society where you have lots of armed people who have a strong
> belief that they are supposed to use their guns to get what they want
> is a society that will not have a rule of law. So the question is what
> is the appropriate balance place(s).

Why do you state the obvious as if it's a worthwhile point?


> >
> >Yes, you have digressed into an area you clearly no nothing about.
>
> Fascinating. Do you have more than that or do we take your word for
> it?

Clearly, but you have decided to argue a point yet don't even know the
data exists or who the relavent researchers are.

>
> > And
> >as always, people like you
>
> Like me?
>
> > ignore history modern data, and men far
> >smarter than yourself
>
> You, of course.

Sorry, I can't take credit for writing the Const. of the US, or the
Second Amend, but you can read my take on it at:

http://www.brinkzone.com/otherarticles.html

>
> >who felt the right to self defense, be it from
> >tyrannical government or other threat, was an individual right essential
> >to the checks and balances of this democracy.
> >
> >"A FREE people ought...to be armed..." -George Washington, speech of
> > January 7, 1790 in Boston Independent Chronicle, January 14, 1790.
> >
> >Which part of that don't you understand?
>
> Well, the "..." for one. Two actually. Do you have the whole quote and
> the context? Or is one partial, perhaps butchered quote from
> Washington supposed to sway me?

Again the cite is there if you wish to look up his entire speech, which
BTW, I have read. The position on the issue of the founders and writers
of the Const is well known.

"Resistance to sudden violence, for the preservation not only of my
person, my limbs, and life, but of my property, is an indisputable right
of nature which I have never surrendered to the public by the compact of
society, and which perhaps, I could not surrender if I would."
--- John Adams, Boston Gazette, Sept. 5, 1763,reprinted in 3 The Works
of John Adams 438 (Charles F. Adams ed., 1851).

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

John Hanson
September 28th 04, 03:15 AM
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 17:57:02 -0400, Will Brink
> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>
>Exactly, yet Im always amazed to see the dpeth people will go to pretend
>they can't or wont ever be faced with such a thing and worse, because
>they have never had any experience, they fail to understand why others
>demand the right to defend themselves. Denial is not a tactic.
>

The fact that some meth heads are randomly killing people ought to be
enough to make people realize that the odds are about even for
everyone.

We had two guys two years ago kill an old couple in the Twin Cities
and then they went on to kill a mother and her teenaged son and
daughter with a hammer and knife in Outstate Minnesota. All the
victims were picked at random. Luckily one of the scumbags felt
remorse and killed himself.

Two weeks ago, another meth head attacked and killed two different
people in two different places with no apparent motive. It was
completely random.

Tiger Hillside
September 28th 04, 04:13 AM
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 17:52:07 -0400, John M. Williams
> wrote:

>Tiger Hillside > wrote:
>
>> John M. Williams > wrote:
>>
>>>Tiger Hillside > wrote:
>>>
>>>> John M. Williams > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Tiger Hillside > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> John M. Williams > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Tiger Hillside > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Will Brink > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Tiger Hillside > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Seems to me that individual violence was not the solution to
>>>>>>>>>> the problem at all.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Really? You know of another way to stop said sadistic psychopath from
>>>>>>>>>killing you? Do tell.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Yes. Putting them in mental homes. Having a safe orderly society based
>>>>>>>>on law so the psychopaths stand out from the general population. One
>>>>>>>>of the keys would be the willingness to use individual determination
>>>>>>>>to use violence to achieve personal ends. That is generally suspicious
>>>>>>>>behavior.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Your ignorance of the functional realities of the criminal justice
>>>>>>>system is quite stunning. I suspect the same is true of your
>>>>>>>understanding of related psychopathologies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Did I say that the world was perfect? That we had solved all of the
>>>>>>problems? I was asked if I had another way to solve the problem and I
>>>>>>gave one. That does not mean that I think that our current system is
>>>>>>the best of all possible systems. Try reading for comprehension before
>>>>>>you use person insults as a substitute for argument.
>>>>>
>>>>>Then let me restate my answer: your ignorance of criminal BEHAVIOR and
>>>>>the underlying psychopatholgies is astounding. See? No "current
>>>>>system" on which you can lay blame; just real people.
>>>>
>>>>So you think the way to deal with criminal behavior is individual
>>>>violence.
>>>
>>>I think that violence is probably to optimal response to imminent and
>>>unavoidable violent criminal behavior. The law recognizes this fact;
>>>it is known as "self-defense" or "defense of others."
>>
>>Of course. The question was not that, the question was whether or not
>>the existence of psychopaths in our society was a reason to have a
>>gun. Not whether or not a gun is a good thing to have if a psychopath
>>attacks you.
>
>Are you implying that a disappearance of guns in society would result
>in a concomitant disappearance of attacks by psychopaths?

I am implying no such thing. I could take the path of others here and
insult your for you misunderstanding of logic, but I don't see that as
productive. I will say I don't know how you got that concept from what
I wrote. I haven't even suggest or called for a disappearance of guns
from our society. What I have said is that I would not think of guns
as the first thing to protect people in society from psychopaths. From
that comment I have multiple people attacking me for wanting to ban
guns.

>What planet are you from?

Earth.
>
>>> As always, the
>>>force applied should be reasonable under the circumstances. Still,
>>>your naive idealism is great for salon chats, but it must necessarily
>>>yield to realities recognized by those of us who deal with these
>>>matters on a daily basis.
>>
>>Funny, I have never had to deal with a sadistic psychopath. You live a
>>much different life than I do.
>
>The fact that some people here *do* deal with such offenders reduces
>the likelihood that you will need to do so.

Which was kind of my point.

>Perhaps your cloistered
>environment is such that you need not recognize the hard realities to
>which others are subjected.

Please tell me how you get that from what I wrote. Where have I
suggested that somehow no one should have a gun? What are these
"others" who I am failing to recognize?

> It's easy to be a soft-hearted liberal,
>believing in the basic goodness of mankind, when you can isolate
>yourself from the ugliness that you would prefer not to see.

And where do you get anything from me about the "basic goodness of
mankind"? If several of you would stop imposing some caricature on my
words and read what I have actually written we might have a different
conversation. I see almost no relationship between what I think or
write and what you people have said about me or my ideas. Your comment
above simply has nothing to do with either what I have written or what
I think. I don't think that people are basically good or basically
bad, I think that people have a capability of a wide variety of
actions. I also think that some people, likely due to early childhood
treatment thought I understand some of that work is suspect, are prone
to massive violence. This will likely surprise you given the
caricature you have of my views, but I actually think that there are
people who, due to their actions as children or teenagers, who should
be put away for life. Sociopaths, as far as I know, can't be "cured".
We should make an effort to give them as comfortable a space as we
can, but we should keep them away from the rest of society.
Understand, I don't mean after they have committed their first murder
or rape, I mean after they have shown a propensity for violence and
cruelty.

John M. Williams
September 28th 04, 04:29 AM
Tiger Hillside > wrote:
>
> John M. Williams > wrote:
>>
>> It's easy to be a soft-hearted liberal,
>>believing in the basic goodness of mankind, when you can isolate
>>yourself from the ugliness that you would prefer not to see.
>
>And where do you get anything from me about the "basic goodness of
>mankind"? If several of you would stop imposing some caricature on my
>words and read what I have actually written we might have a different
>conversation.

You _are_ a caricature, Tigger. You're unrealistic idealism permeates
everything you write.

>I see almost no relationship between what I think or
>write and what you people have said about me or my ideas. Your comment
>above simply has nothing to do with either what I have written or what
>I think. I don't think that people are basically good or basically
>bad, I think that people have a capability of a wide variety of
>actions. I also think that some people, likely due to early childhood
>treatment thought I understand some of that work is suspect, are prone
>to massive violence. This will likely surprise you given the
>caricature you have of my views, but I actually think that there are
>people who, due to their actions as children or teenagers, who should
>be put away for life. Sociopaths, as far as I know, can't be "cured".
>We should make an effort to give them as comfortable a space as we
>can, but we should keep them away from the rest of society.
>Understand, I don't mean after they have committed their first murder
>or rape, I mean after they have shown a propensity for violence and
>cruelty.

Unfortunately, the law does not allow that, and if you personally came
to know an incarcerated sociopath, you would be easy mark for him to
manipulate into believing that he was "cured." I have seen this
happen to several people, and those people became proponents of the
sociopath's release.

The law of self-defense is well defined, and there is nothing wrong
with a law-abiding citizen being armed in order to effectuate an act
of self-defense in a lawful manner.

Tiger Hillside
September 28th 04, 04:45 AM
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 19:28:08 -0400, Will Brink
> wrote:

>In article >,
> Tiger Hillside > wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 18:07:51 GMT, Adam Fahy >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Tiger Hillside wrote:
>> >
>> >> Really? You think you can out-do a sadistic psychopath by using more
>> >> violence? Seems to me that individual violence was not the solution to
>> >> the problem at all.
>> >
>> >It's absurd to suggest that self-defense is not a solution to situations
>> >in which your safety is put in jeopardy.
>>
>> I did not in any way suggest that self-defense was not appropriate. If
>> you have the context you would see that I was surprised that the
>> existence of psychotics was seen as a good argument for gun
>> possession.
>
>It is a reason, not the only reason, and we all fail to see why you
>should be surprised by that.

>> It sure seems to me that there are very few psychotics and
>> lots of opportunities for gun accidents.
>
>"seems to me" means you are depending on emotions over facts.

As opposed to that data you keep referring to.

>> There may well be other
>> arguments for gun possession, but that was not one of them.
>
>Incorrect.

Tiger Hillside
September 28th 04, 02:00 PM
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 23:29:26 -0400, John M. Williams
> wrote:

>Tiger Hillside > wrote:
>>
>> John M. Williams > wrote:
>>>
>>> It's easy to be a soft-hearted liberal,
>>>believing in the basic goodness of mankind, when you can isolate
>>>yourself from the ugliness that you would prefer not to see.
>>
>>And where do you get anything from me about the "basic goodness of
>>mankind"? If several of you would stop imposing some caricature on my
>>words and read what I have actually written we might have a different
>>conversation.
>
>You _are_ a caricature, Tigger. You're unrealistic idealism permeates
>everything you write.

Especially when so much gets read into what I write that I did not
mean. For example, you could show where I said anything implying the
"basic goodness of >mankind". You say I did it, show it. Simply
asserting it again does not make it so.

>>I see almost no relationship between what I think or
>>write and what you people have said about me or my ideas. Your comment
>>above simply has nothing to do with either what I have written or what
>>I think. I don't think that people are basically good or basically
>>bad, I think that people have a capability of a wide variety of
>>actions. I also think that some people, likely due to early childhood
>>treatment thought I understand some of that work is suspect, are prone
>>to massive violence. This will likely surprise you given the
>>caricature you have of my views, but I actually think that there are
>>people who, due to their actions as children or teenagers, who should
>>be put away for life. Sociopaths, as far as I know, can't be "cured".
>>We should make an effort to give them as comfortable a space as we
>>can, but we should keep them away from the rest of society.
>>Understand, I don't mean after they have committed their first murder
>>or rape, I mean after they have shown a propensity for violence and
>>cruelty.
>
>Unfortunately, the law does not allow that,

I did not say it did, I said I was in favor of the idea.

> and if you personally came
>to know an incarcerated sociopath, you would be easy mark for him to
>manipulate into believing that he was "cured." I have seen this
>happen to several people, and those people became proponents of the
>sociopath's release.

One of the ways to deal with this is to increase general knowledge of
the causes (to the extent that we know them) and qualities of
sociopaths.

>The law of self-defense is well defined, and there is nothing wrong
>with a law-abiding citizen being armed in order to effectuate an act
>of self-defense in a lawful manner.

Nor have I said otherwise.

Will Brink
September 28th 04, 02:29 PM
In article >,
Tiger Hillside > wrote:

> On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 19:28:08 -0400, Will Brink
> > wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> > Tiger Hillside > wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 18:07:51 GMT, Adam Fahy >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Tiger Hillside wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Really? You think you can out-do a sadistic psychopath by using more
> >> >> violence? Seems to me that individual violence was not the solution to
> >> >> the problem at all.
> >> >
> >> >It's absurd to suggest that self-defense is not a solution to situations
> >> >in which your safety is put in jeopardy.
> >>
> >> I did not in any way suggest that self-defense was not appropriate. If
> >> you have the context you would see that I was surprised that the
> >> existence of psychotics was seen as a good argument for gun
> >> possession.
> >
> >It is a reason, not the only reason, and we all fail to see why you
> >should be surprised by that.
>
> >> It sure seems to me that there are very few psychotics and
> >> lots of opportunities for gun accidents.
> >
> >"seems to me" means you are depending on emotions over facts.
>
> As opposed to that data you keep referring to.

Which I supplied in anthor post and you have ignored so far. Shocking.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

Will Brink
September 28th 04, 04:16 PM
In article >,
Carl Nisarel > wrote:

> But heard, half-heard in the silliness, Will Brink writes;
>
> > [The Journal of Law and Economics, vol. XLIV (October
> > 2001)] (C) 2001 by The University of Chicago.
> > 0022-2186/2001/4402-0018
> >
> > RIGHT-TO-CARRY CONCEALED WEAPON LAWS AND HOMICIDE IN LARGE
> > U.S. COUNTIES: THE EFFECT ON WEAPON TYPES, VICTIM
> > CHARACTERISTICS, AND VICTIM-OFFENDER RELATIONSHIPS*
> >
> > DAVID E. OLSON
> > Loyola University Chicago
> >
> > MICHAEL D. MALTZ
> > University of Illinois at Chicago
>
> Maltz had repudiated that article and Maltz now claims that
> it and all of Lott's research used fatally flawed data that
> is invalid and unreliable.

Is that right? Interesting. Where is that link? And other researchers
who found Lott's methods robust? He asked for data, and I supplied it.
Debating that data and others is of course another topic of debated.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

John M. Williams
September 28th 04, 04:55 PM
Carl Nisarel >, spewing his usual
deceptions, wrote:
>John M. Williams writes:
>
>> It's easy to be a soft-hearted liberal,
>> believing in the basic goodness of mankind, when you can
>> isolate yourself from the ugliness that you would prefer
>> not to see.
>
>"The vast majority of the population lives in low-crime
>neighborhoods and has virtually no need for a gun for defensive
>reasons." - Gary Kleck

Circa 1989. But in 1995 …

"[E]ach year in the U.S. there are about 2.2 to 2.5 million DGUs
(defensive gun uses) of all types by civilians against humans, with
about 1.5 to 1.9 million of the incidents involving use of handguns.

"These estimates are larger than those derived from the best previous
surveys, indicating that technical improvements in the measurement
procedures have, contrary to the expectations of Cook, Reiss and Roth,
and McDowall and Wiersema, increased rather than decreased estimates
of the frequency that DGUs occur. Defensive gun use is thus just
another specific example of a commonplace pattern in criminological
survey work, which includes victimization surveys, self-report surveys
of delinquency, surveys of illicit drug use, etc.: the better the
measurement procedures, the higher the estimates of controversial
behaviors." Gary Kleck & Marc Gertz, Armed Resistance to Crime: The
Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun, 86 JOURNAL OF
CRIMINAL LAW AND CRIMINOLOGY 150, 164 (1995).

"How could such a serious thing happen so often without becoming
common knowledge? This phenomenon, regardless of how widespread it
really is, is largely an invisible one as far as governmental
statistics are concerned. Neither the defender/victim nor the criminal
ordinarily has much incentive to report this sort of event to the
police, and either or both often have strong reasons not to do so.
Consequently, many of these incidents never come to the attention of
the police, while others may be reported but without victims
mentioning their use of a gun." Ibid. at 168.

Will Brink
September 28th 04, 05:15 PM
In article >,
Carl Nisarel > wrote:

> But heard, half-heard in the silliness, Will Brink writes;
>
> > In article >,
> > Carl Nisarel > wrote:
> >
> >> But heard, half-heard in the silliness, Will Brink writes;
> >>
> >> > [The Journal of Law and Economics, vol. XLIV (October
> >> > 2001)] (C) 2001 by The University of Chicago.
> >> > 0022-2186/2001/4402-0018
> >> >
> >> > RIGHT-TO-CARRY CONCEALED WEAPON LAWS AND HOMICIDE IN
> >> > LARGE U.S. COUNTIES: THE EFFECT ON WEAPON TYPES, VICTIM
> >> > CHARACTERISTICS, AND VICTIM-OFFENDER RELATIONSHIPS*
> >> >
> >> > DAVID E. OLSON
> >> > Loyola University Chicago
> >> >
> >> > MICHAEL D. MALTZ
> >> > University of Illinois at Chicago
> >>
> >> Maltz had repudiated that article and Maltz now claims
> >> that it and all of Lott's research used fatally flawed
> >> data that is invalid and unreliable.
> >
> > Is that right?
>
> Yep.
>
> A Note on the Use of County-Level UCR Data
> Michael D. Maltz and Joseph Targonski
> Journal of Quantitatie Criminology, Vol. 18, No. 3, September
> 2002

Where he admits he used no data of his own and used only Lott's which he
says, is not valid now?


>
> That you aren't aware of it simply demonstrates your bias and
> ignorance. It's been pointed out to you before. Your lack of
> knowledge of it further demonstrates your bias and deliberate
> ignorance.

I suggest you post the letter son. It would be interesting reading.

>
>
>
>
>
> > Interesting. Where is that link? And other
> > researchers who found Lott's methods robust?
>
> None outside of Lott have.

That of course is false, but if i post Moody's study, you will come up
with your usual conspiracy theory that he is Lott's cousin or some such
BS. There are others of course, and I have never defended Lott as being
without possible fault, but compared to what is passed as "research" by
the anti gun types, Lott's work looks like the Gold Standard. I just
enjoy Lott because he is such a thorn in the side for the anti gun
groups.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

John M. Williams
September 28th 04, 05:16 PM
Carl Nisarel > wrote:
>But heard, half-heard in the silliness, Tiger Hillside
>writes;
>
>> If several of you would stop imposing some caricature on my
>> words and read what I have actually written we might have a
>> different conversation.
>
>They won't stop. People like Will and Williams only know how to
>attack the strawman caricatures they create.

Hey, Carl, can we play The Logical Fallacy Game? Wait, wait … don't
tell me … that was "argumentum ad hominem." Yes! I win! I win!

Will Brink
September 28th 04, 05:16 PM
In article >,
Carl Nisarel > wrote:

> But heard, half-heard in the silliness, Tiger Hillside
> writes;
>
> > If several of you would stop imposing some caricature on my
> > words and read what I have actually written we might have a
> > different conversation.
>
> They won't stop.

That's true, we will not stop posting the facts. On that you can take to
the bank.

> People like Will and Williams only know how to
> attack the strawman caricatures they create.

Now let the grown ups talk.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

Will Brink
September 28th 04, 05:18 PM
In article >,
Carl Nisarel > wrote:

> But heard, half-heard in the silliness, John M. Williams
> writes;
>
> > It's easy to be a soft-hearted liberal,
> > believing in the basic goodness of mankind, when you can
> > isolate yourself from the ugliness that you would prefer
> > not to see.
> >
>
> "The vast majority of the population lives in low-crime
> neighborhoods and has virtually no need for a gun for defensive
> reasons." - Gary Kleck

Of course his own research might suggest otherwise, but his quote does
not alter anything.

"Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any
government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of the
citizens to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms
should not be carefully used and that definite safety rules of
precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of the
citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary
government and one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears
remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always
possible."
Hubert H. Humphrey (1911-78), 36th US Vice President, Democrat

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

Will Brink
September 28th 04, 05:22 PM
In article >,
John M. Williams > wrote:

> "How could such a serious thing happen so often without becoming
> common knowledge? This phenomenon, regardless of how widespread it
> really is, is largely an invisible one as far as governmental
> statistics are concerned. Neither the defender/victim nor the criminal
> ordinarily has much incentive to report this sort of event to the
> police, and either or both often have strong reasons not to do so.
> Consequently, many of these incidents never come to the attention of
> the police, while others may be reported but without victims
> mentioning their use of a gun." Ibid. at 168.

Marvin Wolfgang, the late Director of the Sellin Center for Studies in
Criminology and Criminal Law at the University of Pennsylvania,
considered by many to be the foremost criminologist in the country,
wrote in that same issue,

"I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the
criminologists in this country. If I were Mustapha Mond of Brave New
World, I would eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe
even from the police ... What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck
and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an
almost clear cut case of methodologically sound research in support of
something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a
gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator. ...I have to admit my
admiration for the care and caution expressed in this article and this
research. Can it be true that about two million instances occur each
year in which a gun was used as a defensive measure against crime? It is
hard to believe. Yet, it is hard to challenge the data collected. We do
not have contrary evidence. The National Crime Victim Survey does not
directly contravene this latest survey, nor do the Mauser and Hart
Studies. ... the methodological soundness of the current Kleck and Gertz
study is clear. I cannot further debate it. ... The Kleck and Gertz
study impresses me for the caution the authors exercise and the
elaborate nuances they examine methodologically. I do not like their
conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their
methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance
and have done exceedingly well."

So this data has been peer-reviewed by a top (anti gun!) criminologist
in this country who was prejudiced in advance against its results, and
even he found the scientific evidence overwhelmingly convincing.

Source: "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of
Self-Defense with a Gun," by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, in The Journal
of Criminal Law & Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law,
Volume 86, Number 1, Fall, 1995

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

Tiger Hillside
September 28th 04, 05:33 PM
On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 12:16:40 -0400, John M. Williams
> wrote:

>Carl Nisarel > wrote:
>>But heard, half-heard in the silliness, Tiger Hillside
>>writes;
>>
>>> If several of you would stop imposing some caricature on my
>>> words and read what I have actually written we might have a
>>> different conversation.
>>
>>They won't stop. People like Will and Williams only know how to
>>attack the strawman caricatures they create.
>
>Hey, Carl, can we play The Logical Fallacy Game? Wait, wait … don't
>tell me … that was "argumentum ad hominem." Yes! I win! I win!

Actually it was not. An Ad Hominem fallacy is an attack on the person
as a substitute for attacking the argument. Calling me an idiot, as
David did, or calling me a caricature, as you did, or claiming my
ignorance was the issue, without pointing out the problems in what I
said, those were ad hominem.

Will Brink
September 28th 04, 05:50 PM
In article >,
Carl Nisarel > wrote:

> But heard, half-heard in the silliness, Will Brink writes;
>
> > Exactly, yet Im always amazed to see the dpeth people will
> > go to pretend they can't or wont ever be faced with such a
> > thing and worse,
>
> I'm amazed to see the depth that people like you will go to to
> pretend that they will be faced by such a thing.

That of course is irrelevant. My relative risk is of no concern to you
nor does it give you or anyone else any right to deny that Right to me.
Of course, you have no idea of what my risk is. I lived in Newton MA,
which was listed as the second safest city in the US. Went to visit my
friend at the fish store, and missed his being shot twice by less then
40 minutes. We had rash of bank robberies, and I missed my bank being
robbed by less then 20 minutes. Wanna know how he finally got caught?
He robbed a bank in NH and an armed citizen shot his tires out as he
left and the police picked him up shortly after. He got a ³thanks² from
the cops and d he should have gottenŠ Where do you think All of the
happens with Klecks numbers? It¹s spread all over the place. You don¹t
need a gun till you need a gun, but when you need one, you really need
one!

Of course you would say something predictable stupid like ³it¹s rare²
but of course we know from the data, that is not true. Yes, it¹s rarer
in some places then others, but that again, is irrelevant to the overall
issue of whether or not CCW reduced crime ( proven fact) and if the
Second Amend supports it, another proven fact. Your attempt to keeping
bouncing around to try other tactics fools only you.

Of course behind Klecks number are real people experiencing real life
and death struggles, many of which are armed citizens coming to the aid
of police (vs the other way around), but people like you will ignore it
while keeping your head firmly in the sand, because it can¹t possibly
happen to you. Some real people:


Armed Citizens And Police Officers:


Things had turned ugly for Oklahoma Highway Patrol Officer Rick Wallace.
He had found marijuana on a speeder, but was overpowered by the man
before he could cuff him. Passerby Adolph Krejsek witnessed the
altercation and came to the rescue, using his own firearm to help the
trooper control the suspect. After helping subdue the assailant, Krejsek
used the injured trooper`s radio to call for help.
(The Review Courier, Alva, OK, 1/8/95) (AR 6/95)

"It`s more than fighting fires. If somebody is in trouble, we`re going
to show up," said Sipsey Valley volunteer firefighter James "Buddy"
O`Hanlon. O`Hanlon was one of about 30 armed volunteer firefighters who
responded within minutes to an emergency call from their chief, L.A.
Marlowe, who had just been robbed and shot at outside of his Buhl, Ala.,
store. One suspect was spotted before he made it 100 yds. and was
cornered in the woods by the army of firefighters, who apprehended him.
Sheriff`s deputies quickly arrested another robber who had been
identified by the firefighters. A third suspect was later apprehended.
(The News, Tuscaloosa, AL, 1/12/95) (AR 4/95)

In the finest tradition of armed citizens who take on crime in their
communities, Texan Travis Neel helped save a wounded Harris County
deputy sheriff`s life. Witnessing the shooting by one of a trio of
Houston gang members after a traffic stop just west of Houston,
Neel--who was on his way to his pistol range--pulled his gun and fired,
driving the officer`s assailants away. An off-duty sheriff`s deputy also
came on the scene and joined Neel in covering the deputy, whose life was
saved by his body armor. The trio was captured after a manhunt.
(The Post, Houston, TX, 1/22/94) (AR 4/94)

While the situation ended without incident, armed citizen Michael Acree
stood ready to lend a hand when a police officer stopped a carload of
unruly teenagers outside his Salem, Connecticut, home. Noticing the
youths scuffling with the officer, Acree retrieved his pistol and went
out onto his lawn. When the youths saw Acree and his handgun, they
calmed down and the situation ended peaceably. Acree earned the
appreciation both of town officials and the officer.
(The Bulletin, Norwich, CT, 5/22/93) (AR 9/93)

Vincent McCarthy wasn`t afraid to lend a hand when he noticed a police
officer struggling with a man and woman at the side of the road. He
tried to help subdue the man who was kicking the officer in the face.
Despite McCarthy`s warnings, the man pressed his assault, and the tour
boat captain shot him once in the leg with a pistol he is licensed to
carry and stopped the attack. Neither the officer nor McCarthy were
seriously injured.
(The Daily Commercial, Leesburg, FL, 4/10/92) (AR 6/92)

Citizens of Ivor, Va., turned out in force when two men robbed the local
bank. After their car crashed while fleeing from police, the duo fled
into a wooded area. Local residents immediately armed themselves and,
along with police, surrounded the woods. The pair surrendered to a
volunteer and an officer the next morning. Said one local resident,
"Here, the feeling is `Hey, you`ve got my money.`"
(The Virginian-Pilot, Norfolk, VA, 10/20/91)(AR 3/92)

A North Myrtle Beach, N.C., citizen was credited by the city`s public
safety director with possibly saving the life of Police Officer Richard
Jernick. Jernick had pulled over a suspected bank robber`s car after a
chase, when the suspect charged the cruiser and pointed a gun at the
officer, who was still behind the wheel. At that point authorities said,
the robbery suspect saw that James Beach, a semi-retired electrician who
had joined the pursuit, had a pistol pointed at him. Startled, the
robber ran for his car, and Officer Jernick was able to shoot and wound
him.
(The Observer, Charlotte, NC, 7/4/91) (AR 9/91)

When Eric Stewart of Oxford, Iowa, heard that an Iowa state trooper had
been killed in a plane crash while participating in the manhunt for a
robbery suspect, he got his revolver, jumped in his car and joined the
search. He passed a man on foot he thought might be the suspect. Stewart
stopped at a local farm, and while he was talking to the owners, the man
attempted to force his way into the home. Stewart captured and held him
at gunpoint until police arrived.
(The Press-Citizen, Iowa City, IA, 10/15/90) (AR 1/91)

During a drug arrest in Webster Parish, La., a sheriff`s deputy and a
state trooper found themselves struggling with their two suspects. But
four citizens observed the battle and, armed with shotguns, they came to
the officers` aid, enabling them to make the arrests.
(The Press-Herald, Minden, LA, 5/23/89) (AR 11/89)

Dave Storton, a San Jose, Calif., police officer, was doing off-duty
security work at an apartment complex when two burglars knocked him down
and attempted to grab his revolver. During the struggle, one of the
assailants bit off part of Storton`s ear, but the two attackers were run
off by an apartment resident who came to the rescue, armed with a
shotgun.
(The Chronicle, San Francisco, CA, 5/12/88) (AR 10/88)

Miami, Okla., motel owner Oba Edwards witnessed two policemen struggling
with a man they were attempting to arrest and saw the man wrest away one
officer`s revolver, shoot and kill him. Edwards armed himself and fired
a shot that allowed the remaining officer to recover his partner`s
revolver and fatally wound the attacker. The dead man was on probation
for assault of a Texas police officer.
(The Daily Oklahoman, Oklahoma City, OK, 6/7/88) (AR 9/88)

After a string of burglaries, a group of four Beaumont, Tex., neighbors,
armed with shotguns, handguns and bats, pursued a burglary suspect to an
overgrown field. Police and residents then joined forces to capture the
suspect, who had set some dry grass on fire to elude pursuit. A police
detective later commented, "In the rush, we didn`t have time to get
their names, but we really appreciated it."
(The Enterprise, Beaumont, TX, 11/12/87) (AR 3/88)

The robber made a clean getaway and had pulled into the Pelham, Ala.,
service station. He found the service rather rude, however, as manager
Ed Milstead used a 12-ga. shotgun to hold him for police. Milstead had
learned of the robbery from a police scanner.
(The News, Birmingham, AL, 2/1/86) (AR 5/86)

A teller in a bank in Indianapolis, Ind., called out to Joseph Ernst
when a man claiming to have a pistol and a bomb was about to get away
with a bagful of stolen money. Ernst, a uniformed sheriff`s deputy,
tackled the man. As they grappled on the floor, the robber tried to get
to Ernst`s sidearm. But Samuel Hatcher, who`d worked with the deputy
years before, halted the struggle by drawing a licensed handgun and
holding it to the robber`s head.
(The Star, Indianapolis, IN) (AR 1/83)

A sheriff`s deputy pursued an armed robbery suspect to a Salem, Oreg.,
supermarket and fired on the man after nearly being run down in the
parking lot. From his adjacent residence, James Hicks was alerted to the
disturbance and armed himself. When the fleeing suspect forced his way
into the home, Hicks ordered him to drop his gun. Instead, he pointed it
at the homeowner, but was shot and killed when Hicks fired first.
(The Statesman Journal, Salem, OR, 1/11/83) (AR 5/83)

Police officer Chris Haldeman entered a Chambersburg, Pa., gold and
silver exchange to arrest a suspect in a stolen property case, but the
man resisted and a struggle ensued. The 220-lb. suspect had Haldeman
pinned to the ground and was choking him when storekeeper Ken Cummings
pulled his pistol and shot the officer`s attacker in the leg. The man, a
known felon, managed to escape, and Det. Haldeman was treated at a local
hospital and released.
(The Morning Herald, Hagerstown, MD, 10/27/83) (AR 1/84)

When a pair of youthful armed robbers hit a convenience store in tiny
Carlotta, Calif., the residents formed a posse and gave chase. They
called ahead to another nearby town, Swain`s Flat, and asked for help.
The Swain`s Flat citizens called another town, Bridgeville, and alerted
Loretta Scott and Gloria Falor. Scott and Falor raised a posse which
waited at their end of Bridgeville Bridge. When the robbers` getaway car
was halfway across the span, the Bridgeville citizens blocked their end
with cars and trucks. Meanwhile, the pursuing Carlotta contingent
blocked the other end. Several citizens armed themselves, but no gunfire
was needed. Sheriff`s deputies appeared and arrested the stranded
criminals.
(The Times-Standard, Eureka, CA, 4/15/82) (AR 7/82)

Joseph Dean of Winchester, Calif., and Wendell Knighton of McGill, Nev.,
were stopped at a rest area near Jackpot, Nev., when they saw a man
shoot a sheriff`s deputy. As the criminal advanced on his car, Dean
grabbed a pistol, rolled under the vehicle and exchanged shots with him.
Knighton, sitting in his own car, opened up, too. In the fusillade, the
criminal was killed with no injury to bystanders. Meanwhile, Knighton`s
wife and sister-in-law gave first aid to the fallen deputy, probably
saving his life.
(The Daily Free Press, Elko, NV, 7/30/82) (AR 9/82)

When James Hill saw police and helicopters searching the area around his
Norco, Calif., home, he suspected that there might have been an escape
from the nearby California Rehabilitation Center. So he reached for a
..357 Mag. revolver and a 12-ga. shotgun, summoned his dog and began to
search his own property. His vigilance was soon rewarded as the dog
located an escapee in a tack room behind the Hill home. Hill held the
prisoner for sheriff`s deputies.
(The Press-Enterprise, Riverside, CA, 3/13/82) (AR 8/82)

A stolen car bearing three escaped convicts was stopped on a Kansas
highway by a state trooper. When the officer ordered the men from the
vehicle, they sped away. With the trooper in pursuit, the escapees
crashed in the town of Gorham; two were captured as they crawled free of
the wreckage. The third convict attempted to flee on foot, only to be
collared by several onlookers who had secured rifles from their pickups
at the trooper`s call for assistance.
(The Morning News, Dallas, TX, 12/5/82) (AR 3/83)

Four young hoodlums were beating off-duty Chicago policeman Russell Ryan
in a parking lot when his wife, Carol, came to the rescue. Retrieving
her husband`s revolver from her purse, she fired warning shots which
scattered the assailants.
(The Sun-Times, Chicago, IL, 1/26/81) (AR 4/81)

George Rayburn and his son were listening to a police scanner radio in
their River Rouge, Mich., home when they heard that officers were
chasing a trio of muggers toward their address. Rayburn grabbed a .357
Mag. revolver and leveled it at one of the lawbreakers, who was
attempting to scale a wall into the Rayburn backyard. Only after police
arrived and arrested the mugger, did Rayburn, a Marine combat veteran,
reveal that he is almost blind.
(The News, Detroit, MI, 1/6/81) (AR 3/81)

Corbin, Ky., motel operator Ray Miracle came upon state trooper James
Phelps attempting to subdue two drunken occupants of a stopped auto and,
carrying his revolver, went to the officer`s aid. At that point, another
car stopped and one of two men inside leveled a gun on Trooper Phelps.
Seeing Miracle`s drawn gun, however, they hastily drove off. Kentucky
State Police rewarded Miracle with their highest civilian honor.
(The Times-Tribune, Corbin, KY) (AR 10/80)

When trooper Bill Brashears stopped a motorist for a traffic violation
near Altus, Ark., the man pulled a gun and shot him in the jaw. Before
falling, Brashears returned fire, wounding the gunman in the arm, but
the assailant then jumped on Brashears and began choking him. A passing
female motorist saw the struggle, stopped, and held the assailant at
gunpoint until others arrived to summon police. She then rushed
Brashears to a local hospital.
(The Arkansas Gazette, Little Rock, AR, 1/2/80) (AR 3/80)

DeKalb, Ga., policeman Tom Whittington was investigating a car accident
when two men jumped him and began beating him. Several neighbors were
unsuccessful in stopping the bloody assault until a man emerged from the
crowd, fired several rifle shots over the heads of the attackers, and
then shot one in the leg. Police arrived shortly and arrested the
assailants.
(The Journal, Atlanta, GA, 10/12/80) (AR 12/80)

Bus driver Robert McCort was driving from Miami to Detroit when he saw
two men and a woman holding a gun on a state trooper near Jacksonville,
Fla. McCort stopped his bus and started running toward the scene.
Several tractor-trailer trucks had stopped, too, and a woman in one of
them handed McCort a .38 cal. revolver as he ran past. Fired upon,
McCort, a member of the Jacksonville Police Reserve, responded with a
volley of shots which drove the gun-wielding criminal away. The trooper
was freed unharmed and the two accomplices arrested.
(The Florida Times-Union, (Jacksonville, FL, 12/15/80) (AR 4/81)

Timothy Willard, a 22-year-old policeman in South Paris, Maine, was shot
to death by a man inside a car parked in the lot of O.D.V. Inc. After
gunning down the rookie policeman, the man fired wildly at company
president, Robert Carroll. Carroll, an NRA Life member, drew his own gun
and killed the man.
(The Sunday Telegram, Portland, ME) (AR 3/79)*

Hearing the description of a robber`s getaway car on the Houston, Tex.,
police radio, several wrecker drivers chased down the culprit and
surrounded him in a service station. Driver Jim Penry leaped from his
wrecker with a loaded shotgun in hand and held the bandit at gun point
until the police arrived.
(The Reporter News, Abilene, TX) (AR 10/78)

An unidentified NRA member became famous throughout Texas as "The
Hunter" when he and his son heard a distress call on their CB radio. Two
college coeds saw a Waco man shoot Sammy Long, a Texas Department of
Public Safety officer, and called for help. The hunter arrived on the
scene too late to save Long`s life, but killed the thug with a 6mm
rifle. Upton County District Atty. Aubrey Edwards said the coeds and the
hunter requested their names not be made public and said the hunter
"deserved a medal" for his action.
(The Times, San Angelo, TX)(AR 2/77)

Ralph Festavan watched as a heroin peddler attacked a Shreveport, La.,
policeman and grabbed the officer`s gun. Festavan ran to the patrol car
parked nearby and got a shotgun with which he shot and killed the pusher.
(The Post, Houston, TX) (AR 11/77)

Cecil Collier, 15, was working with his father in a Wildwood, Fla.,
vegetable field when a state trooper rushed up and asked them to join a
posse searching for three Ohio criminals. The trio had broken through a
tollgate and evaded a roadblock formed by CB radio operators. Collier
was given a 20-ga. shotgun, and he headed into a nearby thicket. There
he found the hoodlums, ordered them to drop their guns, and held them
for the rest of the posse.
(The Tribune, Tampa, FL) (AR 9/77)

Dennis Koch was putting storm windows on his fiancee`s house when he
observed a youth run into nearby woods. He passed the information on to
a police officer who stopped by minutes later and told Koch he was
searching for a burglary suspect. He gave Koch permission to assist him.
Carrying his pistol, for which he has a permit, Koch found the youth
hiding and held him in custody until the officer could place him under
arrest.
(The Times-Union, Rochester, NY) (AR 1/76)

A Missouri state trooper had been shot three times by two armed robbery
suspects when armed citizen Robert Riley of Tiptonville, Tenn., rushed
to his aid. Riley fired a small caliber pistol at the assailants until
they surrendered. The law officer was then rushed to a hospital.
(The Memphis Press-Scimitar, Memphis, TN) (AR 11/75)

Driving into Huntsville, Tex., after sighting-in a deer rifle in the
country, Tony Taylor and Jack Dwenger saw a police car swerve into a
ditch. They parked and ran over to the vehicle where they subdued a man
who was being transported to prison by a deputy sheriff. The deputy, who
had been stabbed twice, credited the pair with saving his life.
(The Huntsville Item, Huntsville, TX) (AR 6/75)

Seeing a state trooper shot to death while checking occupants of a car
near Crystal City, Fla., hunters Ralph Morris and Richard Starling
jumped from their pickup truck with guns in hand and ordered the two
occupants of the car to "freeze." Instead, one opened fire with a .22
handgun while the other stepped on the gas. Starling with a shotgun
blast flattened a tire on the car. When one suspect ran, Morris with his
semi-automatic rifle hit him in both feet. Starling then covered the men
while Morris summoned police. Both men were charged with first-degree
murder.
(The Tampa Tribune, Tampa, FL) (AR 5/74)

Wounded in a gun battle with a robber, a Texas policeman lay in the
street attempting to reload his revolver. As the robber prepared to fire
at him again, L.B. Jackson, Oak Cliff, Tex., covered the robber with a
shotgun and forced him to surrender.
(The Dallas Morning News, Dallas, TX) (AR 2/72)

Ronald Royce, a pharmacist in Elgin, Ill., called police when he
recognized in his store a man who previously had used a forged
prescription to obtain drugs. When a policeman came, the suspect drew a
gun and pointed it at the officer`s head. Grabbing a gun from behind the
counter, Royce fired and wounded the gunman. As the man ran, the
policeman wounded him again and arrested him.
(The Daily Courier-News, Elgin, IL) (AR 1/72)

When Frank Carter, a Carnegie, Okla., farmer, saw three men beating a
town marshal who had stopped them for drunk driving, he grabbed a rifle
from his truck and ordered them to back off. The thugs fled, but were
later captured in a state-patrol roadblock.
(The Daily Oklahoman, Oklahoma City, OK) (AR 7/71)

Hearing noises in his store, grocer Lyle Smith of Orillia, Iowa, called
police and his son-in-law, Larry Adkins. Both Adkins and police arrived
about the same time. Adkins, armed with a shotgun, stopped two intruders
attempting to flee from the officers.
(The Tribune, Des Moines, IA) (AR 7/70)

Three men from Montrose, Colo., were on their way home from a hunting
trip when they surprised four youths beating a state patrolman with
rocks. The patrolman had stopped the youths for a traffic violation, and
the four boys had jumped him. The hunters stopped the scuffle and held
three of the youths at gunpoint: the other young man and a juvenile girl
who was in the car escaped but were captured shortly afterward.
(The Post, Denver, CO) (AR 4/70)

A prisoner who escaped from the Federal Reformatory at Chillicothe,
Ohio, while serving a stolen car sentence, was recaptured without firing
a shot because, Deputy Sheriff Dwight Beery reports, farmer Wendell
Bryant, who lives near Frankfort, Ohio, got his shotgun out and backed
up the lone deputy who answered Bryant`s call and helped to trace the
prisoner. Deputy Earl Kuhn reported to Deputy Sheriff Dwight Beery, that
the prisoner appeared ready to make a break at one point but did not do
so "because of Mr. Bryant standing in an advantageous position. I
couldn`t have asked for better assistance." The Ross County Law
Enforcement Officers Ass`n honored Bryant at a special meeting.
(The Gazette, Chillicothe, OH) (AR 3/67)

As Fred Boulter approached a Malden, Mass., A&P store, he noticed a
police cruiser pulled up and two policemen entering the store. Boulter
drew abreast of the store window and saw one policeman lying on the
floor and another staggering out of the front door. When three gunmen
rushed out of the front door and fired shot after shot at the staggering
policeman, Boulter pulled out a cal. .32 automatic and fired at the
three men who were trying to get in a car parked across the street. One
of the thugs took a bullet in the leg from Boulter`s gun and fled with
another bandit as Boulter crossed the street and kept a bead on the
remaining man until police arrived.
(The Globe, Boston, MA) (AR 2/64)

In Indianapolis, Gerald Watson, 17, stood near a policeman who
questioned a robbery suspect when the suspect`s accomplice appeared on
the scene and shot the officer down. Watson, who had taught marksmanship
at the YMCA, grabbed the fallen policeman`s service revolver and shot
the felon dead.
(Associated Press) (AR 5/61)

In Saraland, Ala., the berserk husband of a woman charged with
possession of illegal whisky killed one police officer and wounded
another but, as he tried to make his escape, was shot dead by Carlos
McDonald, the proprietor of a nearby shop.
(United Press Int`l) (AR 2/60)

A gas station bandit fired five shots at a pursuing motorcycle officer
in a wild chase through Tampa streets, ran his getaway car in a ditch,
and fled on foot. J.R. Vause, working on his house, saw the shooting and
the motorcycle as it sped past. He ran inside for his shotgun, and set
off in pursuit of the bandit. When the officer returned, the gunman,
peppered with Vause`s shotgun pellets, meekly surrendered.
(The Tribune, Tampa, FL) (AR 9/59)

Two gunmen kidnapped an Eclectic, Ala., town policeman and used him to
get enter the home of banker Carl Ray Barker late at night. One gunman
took Barker into town to open the bank`s vault, while the other held
Baker*s wife, child and the policeman hostage. When the time-vault
resisted opening, the gunman returned Barker to his house to await a
second crack at the vault. While they waited, Barker put water on the
stove to make coffee. Barker threw the scalding water into one gunman*s
face, subdue him, then was able to get a shotgun, fire and kill the
other would-be bank robber.
(United Press Int`l) (AR 11/59)

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

John M. Williams
September 28th 04, 05:58 PM
Tiger Hillside > wrote:

>On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 12:16:40 -0400, John M. Williams
> wrote:
>
>>Carl Nisarel > wrote:
>>>But heard, half-heard in the silliness, Tiger Hillside
>>>writes;
>>>
>>>> If several of you would stop imposing some caricature on my
>>>> words and read what I have actually written we might have a
>>>> different conversation.
>>>
>>>They won't stop. People like Will and Williams only know how to
>>>attack the strawman caricatures they create.
>>
>>Hey, Carl, can we play The Logical Fallacy Game? Wait, wait … don't
>>tell me … that was "argumentum ad hominem." Yes! I win! I win!
>
>Actually it was not. An Ad Hominem fallacy is an attack on the person
>as a substitute for attacking the argument. Calling me an idiot, as
>David did, or calling me a caricature, as you did, or claiming my
>ignorance was the issue, without pointing out the problems in what I
>said, those were ad hominem.

All were "ad hominem," i.e., "to the man." Carl, in his usual style,
was attempting to attack all our arguments at once by attacking our
character; his history (in my personal archives, since he avoids
impeachment of his own statements by x-no-archiving all his posts)
clearly demonstrates that he cannot cope with those of us who actually
cite peer-reviewed literature, so he eventually falls back on strawman
arguments and ad hominem attacks, despite his own fascination with
logical fallacies.

On the other hand, you just avoid clear statements of your so-called
"argument" so as to dodge rebuttals. And that, Tigger, does make you
look like an idiot and a caricature of knee-jerk liberalism.

Tiger Hillside
September 28th 04, 06:32 PM
On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 12:58:17 -0400, John M. Williams
> wrote:

>Tiger Hillside > wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 12:16:40 -0400, John M. Williams
> wrote:
>>
>>>Carl Nisarel > wrote:
>>>>But heard, half-heard in the silliness, Tiger Hillside
>>>>writes;
>>>>
>>>>> If several of you would stop imposing some caricature on my
>>>>> words and read what I have actually written we might have a
>>>>> different conversation.
>>>>
>>>>They won't stop. People like Will and Williams only know how to
>>>>attack the strawman caricatures they create.
>>>
>>>Hey, Carl, can we play The Logical Fallacy Game? Wait, wait … don't
>>>tell me … that was "argumentum ad hominem." Yes! I win! I win!
>>
>>Actually it was not. An Ad Hominem fallacy is an attack on the person
>>as a substitute for attacking the argument. Calling me an idiot, as
>>David did, or calling me a caricature, as you did, or claiming my
>>ignorance was the issue, without pointing out the problems in what I
>>said, those were ad hominem.
>
>All were "ad hominem," i.e., "to the man." Carl, in his usual style,
>was attempting to attack all our arguments at once by attacking our
>character;

Ok, I accept that. You are right.

>his history (in my personal archives, since he avoids
>impeachment of his own statements by x-no-archiving all his posts)

I dislike that and don't understand it as a technique.

>clearly demonstrates that he cannot cope with those of us who actually
>cite peer-reviewed literature, so he eventually falls back on strawman
>arguments and ad hominem attacks, despite his own fascination with
>logical fallacies.

>On the other hand, you just avoid clear statements of your so-called
>"argument" so as to dodge rebuttals. And that, Tigger, does make you
>look like an idiot and a caricature of knee-jerk liberalism.

How so? I have not argued for gun control, yet I have been attacked
for doing so. I have been attacked for being against self-defense when
I said no such thing. I have actually stated my position here at least
twice: Message-ID: >

"What I have said is that I would not think of guns as the first thing
to protect people in society from psychopaths. "

That really was my only point in this thread. I made an earlier
comment about allowable roles for violent psychotics in society and
that we don't have many any more. I got a response that this was
another reason to have a gun. I find that surprising. I would think
that dealing with violent psychopaths is unlikely to improve with a
gun. I could be wrong, but discussion of other issues regarding crime
or guns is irrelevant to that point. Nor was that particularly a
"liberal" position. I just figured that most likely a psychopath is
likely to get a jump on me even if I am "packing".

Will Brink
September 28th 04, 06:35 PM
In article >,
John M. Williams > wrote:

>
> All were "ad hominem," i.e., "to the man." Carl, in his usual style,
> was attempting to attack all our arguments at once by attacking our
> character; his history (in my personal archives, since he avoids
> impeachment of his own statements by x-no-archiving all his posts)
> clearly demonstrates that he cannot cope with those of us who actually
> cite peer-reviewed literature, so he eventually falls back on strawman
> arguments and ad hominem attacks,

Or conspiracy theories, don¹t forget the conspiracy theories!

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

Will Brink
September 28th 04, 07:15 PM
In article >,
Carl Nisarel > wrote:

> But heard, half-heard in the silliness, Will Brink writes;
>
>
> > Carl Nisarel > wrote:
> >
> >> But heard, half-heard in the silliness, Will Brink writes;
> >>
> >> > Exactly, yet Im always amazed to see the dpeth people
> >> > will go to pretend they can't or wont ever be faced with
> >> > such a thing and worse,
> >>
> >> I'm amazed to see the depth that people like you will go
> >> to to pretend that they will be faced by such a thing.
> >
> > That of course is irrelevant.
>
> If it is, then your comment is equally irrelevant.
>
> > My relative risk is of no
> > concern to you nor does it give you or anyone else any
> > right to deny that Right to me.
>
> That's your opinion. When are you going to post facts?
>
> Posting a bunch of anecdotes also demonstrates that you know
> little about science.

Wow, talk about avoiding the issues! A new low even for Carl. Of course
to you, people saving a cops life are of no interest. Good work as
always.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

Will Brink
September 28th 04, 07:18 PM
In article >,
Carl Nisarel > wrote:

> But heard, half-heard in the silliness, Will Brink writes;
>
> > Marvin Wolfgang, the late Director of the Sellin Center for
> > Studies in Criminology and Criminal Law at the University
> > of Pennsylvania, considered by many to be the foremost
> > criminologist in the country, wrote in that same issue,
>
> Wolfgang was editing the issue and was doing the typical BS
> praising of the contents.

Ah, Carl's Conspiracy theories abound! Yes, noted self proclaimed anti
gun criminologist is going to alter his views in public to ³praise² an
authors work. Your retardation appears to know no bounds. I love you
man.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

John M. Williams
September 28th 04, 08:18 PM
Carl Nisarel > wrote:

>But heard, half-heard in the silliness, John M. Williams
>writes;
>
>> Carl Nisarel >, spewing his
>> usual deceptions, wrote:
>>>John M. Williams writes:
>>>
>>>> It's easy to be a soft-hearted liberal,
>>>> believing in the basic goodness of mankind, when you can
>>>> isolate yourself from the ugliness that you would prefer
>>>> not to see.
>>>
>>>"The vast majority of the population lives in low-crime
>>>neighborhoods and has virtually no need for a gun for
>>>defensive reasons." - Gary Kleck
>>
>> Circa 1989. But in 1995 …
>>
>> "[E]ach year in the U.S. there are about 2.2 to 2.5 million
>> DGUs (defensive gun uses) of all types by civilians against
>> humans, with about 1.5 to 1.9 million of the incidents
>> involving use of handguns.
>
>In a 1994 interview for his book, Kleck stated: "there is
>little or no need for a gun for self-protection because
>there's so little risk of crime. People don't believe it,
>but it's true. You just can't convince most Americans
>they're not at serious risk." -Gary Kleck

But, once again, in 1995 …

"These estimates are larger than those derived from the best previous
surveys[.] *** [T]he better the measurement procedures, the higher the
estimates of controversial behaviors." *** [M]any of these incidents
never come to the attention of the police, while others may be
reported but without victims mentioning their use of a gun."

And the 1994 interview was also before the publication of that 1995
study and its surprising findings, wasn't it, Carl? Unless, of
course, you're reality operates under a different time continuum.

John M. Williams
September 28th 04, 08:37 PM
Carl Nisarel > wrote:

>But heard, half-heard in the silliness, Will Brink writes;
>
>> Marvin Wolfgang, the late Director of the Sellin Center for
>> Studies in Criminology and Criminal Law at the University
>> of Pennsylvania, considered by many to be the foremost
>> criminologist in the country, wrote in that same issue,
>
>Wolfgang was editing the issue and was doing the typical BS
>praising of the contents.
>
>His praise is not a peer review and your attempt to portray
>it as such demonstrates that you do not understand peer
>review of journal articles.

The Kleck/Gertz article was published in the Journal of Criminal
Justice & Criminology, which is a peer-reviewed journal:
http://ejournal.coalliance.org/fullrec.cfm?EJID=3882
http://toby.library.ubc.ca/ejournals/infopage.cfm?id=951
http://annex.ncwc.edu/Library/research/guides/justice.htm

Why do you always try to deceive people with misdirection, Carl?

John M. Williams
September 28th 04, 08:46 PM
Carl Nisarel > bleated:

>But heard, half-heard in the silliness, John M. Williams
>writes;
>
>> he cannot cope with those of us who actually
>> cite peer-reviewed literature,
>
>I 'cope' just fine, Johnny. In my last visit here, I shredded
>you and your buddies use of Lott's research.

Your belief in your own victory is vastly overrated.

>The fact that you and Will still use his long discredited
>research demonstrates that you don't cope well with reviewed
>literature.

I didn't cite Lott in this thread, did I, Carl? Since I don't
x-no-archive my posts to avoid accountability, if I did cite Lott, you
could Google and find it, right, Carl? Please demonstrate an instance
where I "still use his long discredited research."

And see my other post as to what is and is not peer-reviewed
literature, Carl. You really should stop pretending that you're an
academic; you embarrass yourself.

Larry Hodges
September 28th 04, 08:50 PM
John M. Williams wrote:
> Carl Nisarel > wrote:
>
>> But heard, half-heard in the silliness, Will Brink writes;
>>
>>> Marvin Wolfgang, the late Director of the Sellin Center for
>>> Studies in Criminology and Criminal Law at the University
>>> of Pennsylvania, considered by many to be the foremost
>>> criminologist in the country, wrote in that same issue,
>>
>> Wolfgang was editing the issue and was doing the typical BS
>> praising of the contents.
>>
>> His praise is not a peer review and your attempt to portray
>> it as such demonstrates that you do not understand peer
>> review of journal articles.
>
> The Kleck/Gertz article was published in the Journal of Criminal
> Justice & Criminology, which is a peer-reviewed journal:
> http://ejournal.coalliance.org/fullrec.cfm?EJID=3882
> http://toby.library.ubc.ca/ejournals/infopage.cfm?id=951
> http://annex.ncwc.edu/Library/research/guides/justice.htm
>
> Why do you always try to deceive people with misdirection, Carl?

Because he's a liberal puke? Just taking a stab in the dark here...
--
-Larry

Will Brink
September 28th 04, 10:23 PM
In article >,
John M. Williams > wrote:

> Carl Nisarel > bleated:
>
> >But heard, half-heard in the silliness, John M. Williams
> >writes;
> >
> >> he cannot cope with those of us who actually
> >> cite peer-reviewed literature,
> >
> >I 'cope' just fine, Johnny. In my last visit here, I shredded
> >you and your buddies use of Lott's research.
>
> Your belief in your own victory is vastly overrated.
>
> >The fact that you and Will still use his long discredited
> >research demonstrates that you don't cope well with reviewed
> >literature.
>
> I didn't cite Lott in this thread, did I, Carl?

And either did I in fact. It was our sad anti gun troll who threw that
into the mix.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

Will Brink
September 28th 04, 10:24 PM
In article >,
John M. Williams > wrote:

> Carl Nisarel > wrote:
>
> >But heard, half-heard in the silliness, John M. Williams
> >writes;
> >
> >> Carl Nisarel >, spewing his
> >> usual deceptions, wrote:
> >>>John M. Williams writes:
> >>>
> >>>> It's easy to be a soft-hearted liberal,
> >>>> believing in the basic goodness of mankind, when you can
> >>>> isolate yourself from the ugliness that you would prefer
> >>>> not to see.
> >>>
> >>>"The vast majority of the population lives in low-crime
> >>>neighborhoods and has virtually no need for a gun for
> >>>defensive reasons." - Gary Kleck
> >>
> >> Circa 1989. But in 1995 …
> >>
> >> "[E]ach year in the U.S. there are about 2.2 to 2.5 million
> >> DGUs (defensive gun uses) of all types by civilians against
> >> humans, with about 1.5 to 1.9 million of the incidents
> >> involving use of handguns.
> >
> >In a 1994 interview for his book, Kleck stated: "there is
> >little or no need for a gun for self-protection because
> >there's so little risk of crime. People don't believe it,
> >but it's true. You just can't convince most Americans
> >they're not at serious risk." -Gary Kleck
>
> But, once again, in 1995 …
>
> "These estimates are larger than those derived from the best previous
> surveys[.] *** [T]he better the measurement procedures, the higher the
> estimates of controversial behaviors." *** [M]any of these incidents
> never come to the attention of the police, while others may be
> reported but without victims mentioning their use of a gun."

But John, it's better science to go with a quote from a researcher's
opinion over his actual research.

>
> And the 1994 interview was also before the publication of that 1995
> study and its surprising findings, wasn't it, Carl? Unless, of
> course, you're reality operates under a different time continuum.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

John M. Williams
September 28th 04, 10:33 PM
Will Brink > wrote:
> John M. Williams > wrote:
>> Carl Nisarel > bleated:
>>
>> >But heard, half-heard in the silliness, John M. Williams
>> >writes;
>> >
>> >> he cannot cope with those of us who actually
>> >> cite peer-reviewed literature,
>> >
>> >I 'cope' just fine, Johnny. In my last visit here, I shredded
>> >you and your buddies use of Lott's research.
>>
>> Your belief in your own victory is vastly overrated.
>>
>> >The fact that you and Will still use his long discredited
>> >research demonstrates that you don't cope well with reviewed
>> >literature.
>>
>> I didn't cite Lott in this thread, did I, Carl?
>
>And either did I in fact. It was our sad anti gun troll who threw that
>into the mix.

Carl's a real champion at beating up on strawmen.

Carl Nisarel
September 29th 04, 12:15 AM
But heard, half-heard in the silliness, John M. Williams
writes;

> The Kleck/Gertz article was published in the Journal of
> Criminal Justice & Criminology, which is a peer-reviewed
> journal:

Will's assertion was that Wolfgang's comments were part of the
peer-review.

The comments are not.



--
"If any question why we died
Tell them, because our fathers lied."
- Kipling (after his son was killed in WWI)

Larry Hodges
September 29th 04, 12:42 AM
Brain dead commie puke wrote:
> But heard, half-heard in the silliness, Larry Hodges writes;
>
>> Because he's a liberal puke?
>
> You're yet another mindless fool who can do nothing beyond
> write adhoms.

Thank you. For people like you, that's all that is required.
--
-Larry

Will Brink
September 29th 04, 01:05 AM
In article >,
Carl Nisarel > wrote:

> But heard, half-heard in the silliness, Will Brink writes;
>
> > But John, it's better science to go with a quote from a
> > researcher's opinion over his actual research.
>
> That's hilarious coming from you.
>
> You're the moron who used a 2nd hand quote from Wolfgang
>and
> then tried to claim that it was a peer-review.

There goes Carl inventing reality as he goes along. And he can't even
keep what he reads straight or who said what.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

Will Brink
September 29th 04, 01:06 AM
In article >,
Carl Nisarel > wrote:

> But heard, half-heard in the silliness, Will Brink writes;
>
> >> I didn't cite Lott in this thread, did I, Carl?
> >
> > And either did I in fact.
>
> No, you cited and attempted to defend it in another thread.
>
> "It's from an article by proff Lott"
> Message-ID: <WillBrink-FE173C.14074122092004
> @comcast.dca.giganews.com>
>
> In this thread, you foolishly cited an article that uses
> Lott's research. You were ignorant of the fact that one of
> the authors repudiated it.

The author repudiated his own work? Interesting as always Carl.

>
> Lame move, geezer.

What is your age and which journals have you published in again? Please
list.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

Will Brink
September 29th 04, 01:08 AM
In article >,
Carl Nisarel > wrote:

> But heard, half-heard in the silliness, Will Brink writes;
>
> >> Posting a bunch of anecdotes also demonstrates that you know
> >> little about science.
> >
> > Wow, talk about avoiding the issues! A new low even for Carl.
>
> Typical Will.
>
> You're incapable of dealing with the substance and you go for
> the idiotic ad hom.

And you must figure if you repeat yourself enough times, people may
actually believe you.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

Will Brink
September 29th 04, 01:12 AM
In article >,
Carl Nisarel > wrote:

> But heard, half-heard in the silliness, John M. Williams
> writes;
>
> > Carl Nisarel > wrote:
> >
> >>But heard, half-heard in the silliness, John M. Williams
> >>writes;
> >>
> >>> Carl Nisarel >, spewing his
> >>> usual deceptions, wrote:
> >>>>John M. Williams writes:
> >>>>
> >>>>> It's easy to be a soft-hearted liberal,
> >>>>> believing in the basic goodness of mankind, when you
> >>>>> can isolate yourself from the ugliness that you would
> >>>>> prefer not to see.
> >>>>
> >>>>"The vast majority of the population lives in low-crime
> >>>>neighborhoods and has virtually no need for a gun for
> >>>>defensive reasons." - Gary Kleck
> >>>
> >>> Circa 1989. But in 1995 …
> >>>
> >>> "[E]ach year in the U.S. there are about 2.2 to 2.5
> >>> million DGUs (defensive gun uses) of all types by
> >>> civilians against humans, with about 1.5 to 1.9 million
> >>> of the incidents involving use of handguns.
> >>
> >>In a 1994 interview for his book, Kleck stated: "there is
> >>little or no need for a gun for self-protection because
> >>there's so little risk of crime. People don't believe it,
> >>but it's true. You just can't convince most Americans
> >>they're not at serious risk." -Gary Kleck
> >
> > But, once again, in 1995
>
> The 1994 comment is about the book that was forthcoming.
>
> The quote you keep parading is a non sequitur.
>
> ....
>
> > And the 1994 interview was also before the publication of
> > that 1995 study and its surprising findings, wasn't it,
> > Carl?
>
> Kleck was writing the book long before it was published. In
> 1994, he had completed writing it and sent it onto the
> publisher.

And was interviewed on it by Neil Schulman

SCHULMAN: Dr. Kleck, can you tell me generally what was discovered in
your recent survey that wasn't previously known?

KLECK: "Well, the survey mostly generated results pretty consistent with
those of a dozen previous surveys which generally indicates that
defensive use of guns is pretty common and probably more common than
criminal uses of guns"

And what did Kleck have to say about Lott?

"Lott has convincingly demonstrated there is no substantial detriment"
from "shall issue" laws."

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

Will Brink
September 29th 04, 01:13 AM
In article >,
Carl Nisarel > wrote:

> But heard, half-heard in the silliness, John M. Williams
> writes;
>
> > The Kleck/Gertz article was published in the Journal of
> > Criminal Justice & Criminology, which is a peer-reviewed
> > journal:
>
> Will's assertion was that Wolfgang's comments were part of the
> peer-review.

And you are of course telling yet another lie. Please cut and paste
where I made any such assertion.

>
> The comments are not.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

John Hanson
September 29th 04, 01:36 AM
On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 17:32:13 GMT, Tiger Hillside
> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

> I just figured that most likely a psychopath is
>likely to get a jump on me even if I am "packing".
>
They probably would with that defeatist attitude. Practice makes
perfect.

John M. Williams
September 29th 04, 01:58 AM
Carl Nisarel > wrote:

>But heard, half-heard in the silliness, Will Brink writes;
>
>>> I didn't cite Lott in this thread, did I, Carl?
>>
>> And either did I in fact.
>
>No, you cited and attempted to defend it in another thread.

Strawman, Carl. Bad, Carl, bad.

John M. Williams
September 29th 04, 02:09 AM
Carl Nisarel > wrote:

>But heard, half-heard in the silliness, John M. Williams
>writes;
>
>> Carl Nisarel > wrote:
>>
>>>But heard, half-heard in the silliness, John M. Williams
>>>writes;
>>>
>>>> Carl Nisarel >, spewing his
>>>> usual deceptions, wrote:
>>>>>John M. Williams writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> It's easy to be a soft-hearted liberal,
>>>>>> believing in the basic goodness of mankind, when you
>>>>>> can isolate yourself from the ugliness that you would
>>>>>> prefer not to see.
>>>>>
>>>>>"The vast majority of the population lives in low-crime
>>>>>neighborhoods and has virtually no need for a gun for
>>>>>defensive reasons." - Gary Kleck
>>>>
>>>> Circa 1989. But in 1995 …
>>>>
>>>> "[E]ach year in the U.S. there are about 2.2 to 2.5
>>>> million DGUs (defensive gun uses) of all types by
>>>> civilians against humans, with about 1.5 to 1.9 million
>>>> of the incidents involving use of handguns.
>>>
>>>In a 1994 interview for his book, Kleck stated: "there is
>>>little or no need for a gun for self-protection because
>>>there's so little risk of crime. People don't believe it,
>>>but it's true. You just can't convince most Americans
>>>they're not at serious risk." -Gary Kleck
>>
>> But, once again, in 1995
>
>The 1994 comment is about the book that was forthcoming.
>
>The quote you keep parading is a non sequitur.

Your inability to comprehend quotes from journal articles does not
render them non sequiturs. It just makes you a lot stupider than the
persona you have adopted.

>> And the 1994 interview was also before the publication of
>> that 1995 study and its surprising findings, wasn't it,
>> Carl?
>
>Kleck was writing the book long before it was published. In
>1994, he had completed writing it and sent it onto the
>publisher.

Then quote the book, Carl.

>In sociological research, there is often a 1-2 year lag
>between the time an article is written and when it is
>published.

And much more so for books, Carl.

>The authors have also likely been working on the
>research for several years before that. A year before they
>publish a book, they are quite aware of its contents.

And thus, the book was based on even older research. Is any of this
getting through to you, Carl? Are we using big words that you don't
understand? Does the lack of pictures in Usenet hamper your ability
to comprehend?

>It's sad that you don't know this simple fact about
>publishing research.

You don't know jack**** about publishing research, Carl. You
attempted this bluff before, and I called you on your inability to
properly cite resources. Pretending to be an academic doesn't suit
you. Maybe you could pretend to be a race car driver or something.

John M. Williams
September 29th 04, 02:14 AM
Carl Nisarel > wrote:

>But heard, half-heard in the silliness, John M. Williams
>writes;
>
>> Please demonstrate an instance
>> where I "still use his long discredited research."
>>
>> And see my other post as to what is and is not
>> peer-reviewed literature, Carl.
>
>The last time you cited Lott, you demonstrated that you don't
>understand the notion of peer-review.
>
>You cited one of Lott's (still unpublished) working papers.
>
>You weren't aware that a working paper is not a reviewed
>article.

Please cite the post where I stated that Lott's working paper was a
peer-reviewed article.

John M. Williams
September 29th 04, 06:24 AM
Carl Nisarel > wrote:

>But heard, half-heard in the silliness, John M. Williams
>writes;
>
>> Carl Nisarel > wrote:
>>
>>>But heard, half-heard in the silliness, Will Brink writes;
>>>
>>>>> I didn't cite Lott in this thread, did I, Carl?
>>>>
>>>> And either did I in fact.
>>>
>>>No, you cited and attempted to defend it in another thread.
>>
>> Strawman, Carl.
>
>Yes, your comment is a strawman, Johnny.

"Another thread," Carl. Your strawman, Carl. Bad, Carl. Naughty,
naughty.

John M. Williams
September 29th 04, 06:31 AM
Carl Nisarel > bleated:

> John M. Williams writes:
>>
>> Then quote the book, Carl.
>
>Your ego is getting to you again, Johnny.
>
>I'll quote whatever I deem to be relevant.

You _can't_ quote the book, Carl. I knew that. That's why I asked.

>>>It's sad that you don't know this simple fact about
>>>publishing research.
>>
>> You don't know jack**** about publishing research, Carl.
>
>I know far more about it than you, Johnny.

[a] By your ignorance of proper citation format, you proved last year
that you know nothing about scholarly publishing.

[b] You bluster and imply that you have academic credentials, yet
proof is non-existent.

John M. Williams
September 29th 04, 06:33 AM
Carl Nisarel > wrote:

>But heard, half-heard in the silliness, John M. Williams
>writes;
>
>> Carl Nisarel > wrote:
>>
>>>But heard, half-heard in the silliness, John M. Williams
>>>writes;
>>>
>>>> Please demonstrate an instance
>>>> where I "still use his long discredited research."
>>>>
>>>> And see my other post as to what is and is not
>>>> peer-reviewed literature, Carl.
>>>
>>>The last time you cited Lott, you demonstrated that you
>>>don't understand the notion of peer-review.
>>>
>>>You cited one of Lott's (still unpublished) working papers.
>>>
>>>You weren't aware that a working paper is not a reviewed
>>>article.
>>
>> Please cite the post where I stated that Lott's working
>> paper was a peer-reviewed article.
>
>It's in your posts, go to Google and look.

If it was there, you would find it. You made the claim; the burden
rests with you.

I repeat: "Please cite the post where I stated that Lott's working
paper was a peer-reviewed article."

Robert Schuh
September 29th 04, 07:46 AM
Carl Nisarel wrote:

> But heard, half-heard in the silliness, Will Brink writes;
>
> >> In this thread, you foolishly cited an article that uses
> >> Lott's research. You were ignorant of the fact that one of
> >> the authors repudiated it.
> >
> > The author repudiated his own work
>
> You can't remember anything that's more than an hour old, can
> you?
>
> It's good you can demonstrate that you're an incompetent fool.
>
> --
> "If any question why we died
> Tell them, because our fathers lied."
> - Kipling (after his son was killed in WWI)

Sir,
Do you take pride in your ignorance??


--
Robert Schuh
"Everything that elevates an individual above the herd and
intimidates the neighbour is henceforth called evil; and
the fair, modest, submissive and conforming mentality,
the mediocrity of desires attains moral designations and honors"
- Nietzsche

Will Brink
September 29th 04, 02:01 PM
In article >,
Carl Nisarel > wrote:

> But heard, half-heard in the silliness, Will Brink writes;
>
> >> Will's assertion was that Wolfgang's comments were part of
> >> the peer-review.
> >
> > And you are of course telling yet another lie. Please cut
> > and paste where I made any such assertion.
>
> You wrote:
>
> ---
>
> Marvin Wolfgang, the late Director of the Sellin Center for
> Studies in Criminology and Criminal Law at the University of
> Pennsylvania, considered by many to be the foremost
> criminologist in the country, wrote in that same issue,
> ...
>
> So this data has been peer-reviewed by a top (anti gun!)
> criminologist in this country
>
> ---
>
> In that post, you stated that Wolfgang's opinion was a peer-
> review of the journal article.
>
> Why are you lying, Will?

By the above, you clearly show you have no idea what the process of peer
review is. I state again, the above does not in any way claim Dr
Wofgang's comments were peer reviewed, nor BTW, would such comments
require peer review. I ask you again, which journals have you published
in?

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

Will Brink
September 29th 04, 02:03 PM
In article >,
Carl Nisarel > wrote:

> But heard, half-heard in the silliness, Will Brink writes;
>
> > And what did Kleck have to say about Lott?
> >
> > "Lott has convincingly demonstrated there is no substantial
> > detriment" from "shall issue" laws."
>
> No, this is what Kleck wrote about Lott's research

No? That's a direct quote stupid.

>
> "More likely, the declines in crime coinciding with
> relaxation of carry laws were largely attributable to
> other factors not controlled in the Lott and Mustard
> analysis."

Again, you show a total lack of reading skills here. The two quotes
don't conflict at all.

>
> Gary Kleck, "Targeting Guns: Firearms and their Control",
> Aldine de Gruyter, New York, 1997, p. 372

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

Will Brink
September 29th 04, 02:06 PM
In article >,
Carl Nisarel > wrote:

>
> Keep dancing, geezer.

Just can't seem to keep up with the big boys Carl. Let's ask again,
what's your age and which journals have you published in?

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

John M. Williams
September 30th 04, 05:40 PM
Carl Nisarel > wrote:

>But heard, half-heard in the silliness, John M. Williams
>writes;
>
>> Carl Nisarel > bleated:
>>
>>> John M. Williams writes:
>>>>
>>>> Then quote the book, Carl.
>>>
>>>Your ego is getting to you again, Johnny.
>>>
>>>I'll quote whatever I deem to be relevant.
>>
>> You _can't_ quote the book, Carl.
>
>I can, it's on my shelf. You demand is a non sequitur and a
>demonstration of your over-inflated ego.
>
>...
>
>>>>>It's sad that you don't know this simple fact about
>>>>>publishing research.
>>>>
>>>> You don't know jack**** about publishing research, Carl.
>>>
>>>I know far more about it than you, Johnny.
>>
>> [a] By your ignorance of proper citation format,
>
><snicker>
>
>The way *you* want to cite is not the only citation format.
>
>The author and year are all that competent researchers
>require.
>
>Your insistence on volume, issue number, and page numbers
>demonstrates that you don't know much about research

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=6nqnivk0q8vj2ar285pphodnru1rn4bf2l%404 ax.com&output=gplain
(http://tinyurl.com/3vshd)

>> you proved
>> last year that you know nothing about scholarly publishing.
>
>What I proved last year is that you're a whiney egotistical
>fool.
>
>(Kleck & Gertz, 1995) is a proper citation format and is all
>that is needed for people familiar with criminology
>literature. Legitimate researchers who know that literature
>instantly know the difference and relevance between (Kleck,
>1987) and (Kleck, 2004).
>
>But you don't. You don't have a clue.
>
>Go ahead and claim that the above is not a proper citation
>format.

"APA style requires that PARENTHETICAL CITATIONS in the text refer to
entries on the list of REFERENCES CITED at the end of the paper."
http://library.uww.edu/GUIDES/APACITE.htm

"In APA style, source material is cited using a system that emphasizes
the author and date of publication in its in-text citations. These
in-text citations—used when source material is quoted, paraphrased, or
summarized—point to full bibliographic citations located in the
reference page at the end of the document."
http://leo.stcloudstate.edu/research/apaintext.html

"When using APA format, follow the author-date method of in-text
citation. This means that the author's last name and the year of
publication for the source should appear in the text, and a complete
reference should appear in the reference list at the end of the
paper."
http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/research/r_apa.html

"APA style requires two elements for citing outside sources: Reference
Citations in Text and a Reference List. *** References cited in the
text of a research paper must appear in a Reference List or
bibliography. This list provides the information necessary to identify
and retrieve each source."
http://campusgw.library.cornell.edu/newhelp/res_strategy/citing/apa.html

Will Brink
September 30th 04, 07:42 PM
In article >,
Carl Nisarel > wrote:

> But heard, half-heard in the silliness, Will Brink writes;
>
> > In article >,
> > Carl Nisarel > wrote:
> >
> >> But heard, half-heard in the silliness, Will Brink writes;
> >>
> >> > And what did Kleck have to say about Lott?
> >> >
> >> > "Lott has convincingly demonstrated there is no
> >> > substantial detriment" from "shall issue" laws."
> >>
> >> No, this is what Kleck wrote about Lott's research
> >
> > No? That's a direct quote stupid.
>
> Your comment is stupid.
>
> >> "More likely, the declines in crime coinciding with
> >> relaxation of carry laws were largely attributable to
> >> other factors not controlled in the Lott and Mustard
> >> analysis."
> >
> > Again, you show a total lack of reading skills here. The
> > two quotes don't conflict at all.
>
> Again, you dance.
>
> You've lost it, Willy. You're sputtering.

And again, you snip: what is your age and what journals have you
published in?

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

Will Brink
September 30th 04, 07:43 PM
In article >,
Carl Nisarel > wrote:

> But heard, half-heard in the silliness, Will Brink writes;
>
> > In article >,
> > Carl Nisarel > wrote:
> >
> >> But heard, half-heard in the silliness, Will Brink writes;
> >>
> >> >> Will's assertion was that Wolfgang's comments were part
> >> >> of the peer-review.
> >> >
> >> > And you are of course telling yet another lie. Please
> >> > cut and paste where I made any such assertion.
> >>
> >> You wrote:
> >>
> >> ---
> >>
> >> Marvin Wolfgang, the late Director of the Sellin Center
> >> for Studies in Criminology and Criminal Law at the
> >> University of Pennsylvania, considered by many to be the
> >> foremost criminologist in the country, wrote in that same
> >> issue, ...
> >>
> >> So this data has been peer-reviewed by a top (anti gun!)
> >> criminologist in this country
> >>
> >> ---
> >>
> >> In that post, you stated that Wolfgang's opinion was a
> >> peer- review of the journal article.
> >>
> >> Why are you lying, Will?
> >
> > By the above, you clearly show you have no idea what the
> > process of peer review is.
>
> You're dancing, Willy.
>
> > I state again, the above does
> > not in any way claim Dr Wofgang's comments were peer
> > reviewed,
>
> Your comment of "a top (anti gun!) criminologist" clearly was
> referring to Wolfgang.
>
> It's good to see that you know you ****ed up and now are
> trying to dance away from your error.

Still waiting for that info Carl.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

Will Brink
September 30th 04, 07:46 PM
In article >,
John M. Williams > wrote:

> "APA style requires two elements for citing outside sources: Reference
> Citations in Text and a Reference List. *** References cited in the
> text of a research paper must appear in a Reference List or
> bibliography. This list provides the information necessary to identify
> and retrieve each source."
> http://campusgw.library.cornell.edu/newhelp/res_strategy/citing/apa.html

That's way too many big words John, don't wanna scare our favorite anti
gun troll away.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

David
September 30th 04, 08:42 PM
"Will Brink" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Carl Nisarel > wrote:
>
> > But heard, half-heard in the silliness, Will Brink writes;
> >
> > > In article >,
> > > Carl Nisarel > wrote:
> > >
> > >> But heard, half-heard in the silliness, Will Brink writes;
> > >>
> > >> > And what did Kleck have to say about Lott?
> > >> >
> > >> > "Lott has convincingly demonstrated there is no
> > >> > substantial detriment" from "shall issue" laws."
> > >>
> > >> No, this is what Kleck wrote about Lott's research
> > >
> > > No? That's a direct quote stupid.
> >
> > Your comment is stupid.
> >
> > >> "More likely, the declines in crime coinciding with
> > >> relaxation of carry laws were largely attributable to
> > >> other factors not controlled in the Lott and Mustard
> > >> analysis."
> > >
> > > Again, you show a total lack of reading skills here. The
> > > two quotes don't conflict at all.
> >
> > Again, you dance.
> >
> > You've lost it, Willy. You're sputtering.
>
> And again, you snip: what is your age and what journals have you
> published in?
He publishes in mfw - why does he need to publish in 'journals' to have
credibility? - you are snobby little prick Willy

Will Brink
September 30th 04, 10:16 PM
In article >,
"David" > wrote:

> >
> > And again, you snip: what is your age and what journals have you
> > published in?
> He publishes in mfw - why does he need to publish in 'journals' to have
> credibility?

You have either not been following the thread or you are retarded.
Perhaps both.

> - you are snobby little prick Willy

And you are almost as stupid as he is, if that's possible.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

David
September 30th 04, 11:37 PM
"Will Brink" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "David" > wrote:
>
> > >
> > > And again, you snip: what is your age and what journals have you
> > > published in?
> > He publishes in mfw - why does he need to publish in 'journals' to have
> > credibility?
>
> You have either not been following the thread or you are retarded.
> Perhaps both.
>
> > - you are snobby little prick Willy
>
> And you are almost as stupid as he is, if that's possible.

Really wounds me when you say bad things (Can''t be bothered reading your
threads Willy - be nice if you expanded your vocabulary a little - there is
a "word a day" course - nothing longer than one syllable)

John M. Williams
September 30th 04, 11:56 PM
Will Brink > wrote:
>"David" > wrote:
>
>> >
>> > And again, you snip: what is your age and what journals have you
>> > published in?
>> He publishes in mfw - why does he need to publish in 'journals' to have
>> credibility?
>
>You have either not been following the thread or you are retarded.
>Perhaps both.
>
>> - you are snobby little prick Willy
>
>And you are almost as stupid as he is, if that's possible.

David's just filling in for Hudson.

Will Brink
October 1st 04, 12:19 AM
In article >,
"David" > wrote:

> "Will Brink" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "David" > wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > > > And again, you snip: what is your age and what journals have you
> > > > published in?
> > > He publishes in mfw - why does he need to publish in 'journals' to have
> > > credibility?
> >
> > You have either not been following the thread or you are retarded.
> > Perhaps both.
> >
> > > - you are snobby little prick Willy
> >
> > And you are almost as stupid as he is, if that's possible.
>
> Really wounds me when you say bad things (Can''t be bothered reading your
> threads Willy

Which explains your stupid comment, but does not explain the
retardation. Does it run in the family or are you the first?

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

Will Brink
October 1st 04, 12:19 AM
In article >,
John M. Williams > wrote:

> Will Brink > wrote:
> >"David" > wrote:
> >
> >> >
> >> > And again, you snip: what is your age and what journals have you
> >> > published in?
> >> He publishes in mfw - why does he need to publish in 'journals' to have
> >> credibility?
> >
> >You have either not been following the thread or you are retarded.
> >Perhaps both.
> >
> >> - you are snobby little prick Willy
> >
> >And you are almost as stupid as he is, if that's possible.
>
> David's just filling in for Hudson.

And doing a poor job of it at that.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

John Hanson
October 1st 04, 12:53 AM
On 30 Sep 2004 15:08:32 GMT, Carl Nisarel
> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

>But heard, half-heard in the silliness, John M. Williams
>writes;
>
>> Carl Nisarel > wrote:
>>
>>>But heard, half-heard in the silliness, John M. Williams
>>>writes;
>>>
>>>> Carl Nisarel > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>But heard, half-heard in the silliness, John M. Williams
>>>>>writes;
>>>>>
>>>>>> Please demonstrate an instance
>>>>>> where I "still use his long discredited research."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And see my other post as to what is and is not
>>>>>> peer-reviewed literature, Carl.
>>>>>
>>>>>The last time you cited Lott, you demonstrated that you
>>>>>don't understand the notion of peer-review.
>>>>>
>>>>>You cited one of Lott's (still unpublished) working
>>>>>papers.
>>>>>
>>>>>You weren't aware that a working paper is not a reviewed
>>>>>article.
>>>>
>>>> Please cite the post where I stated that Lott's working
>>>> paper was a peer-reviewed article.
>>>
>>>It's in your posts, go to Google and look.
>>
>> If it was there, you would find it. You made the claim;
>> the burden rests with you.
>
>It is there. You're the person claiming that it isn't.

I'd like to see it.

>
>
>> I repeat: "Please cite the post where I stated that Lott's
>> working paper was a peer-reviewed article."
>
>You are mindlessly repeating your strawman argument.

Doesn't appear that way to me. How about just citing the above and
settle this thing now.

David
October 1st 04, 01:01 AM
"Will Brink" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "David" > wrote:
>
> > "Will Brink" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > In article >,
> > > "David" > wrote:
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > And again, you snip: what is your age and what journals have you
> > > > > published in?
> > > > He publishes in mfw - why does he need to publish in 'journals' to
have
> > > > credibility?
> > >
> > > You have either not been following the thread or you are retarded.
> > > Perhaps both.
> > >
> > > > - you are snobby little prick Willy
> > >
> > > And you are almost as stupid as he is, if that's possible.
> >
> > Really wounds me when you say bad things (Can''t be bothered reading
your
> > threads Willy
>
> Which explains your stupid comment, but does not explain the
> retardation. Does it run in the family or are you the first?
>
> --
> Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/
>
got through high school - no problem. These were the best 4 years of my
life - when I was in 8th grade.

David
October 1st 04, 01:01 AM
"Will Brink" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> John M. Williams > wrote:
>
> > Will Brink > wrote:
> > >"David" > wrote:
> > >
> > >> >
> > >> > And again, you snip: what is your age and what journals have you
> > >> > published in?
> > >> He publishes in mfw - why does he need to publish in 'journals' to
have
> > >> credibility?
> > >
> > >You have either not been following the thread or you are retarded.
> > >Perhaps both.
> > >
> > >> - you are snobby little prick Willy
> > >
> > >And you are almost as stupid as he is, if that's possible.
> >
> > David's just filling in for Hudson.
>
> And doing a poor job of it at that.
>
that's an enormous compliment for Hudson

David
October 1st 04, 01:02 AM
"John M. Williams" > wrote in message
...
> Will Brink > wrote:
> >"David" > wrote:
> >
> >> >
> >> > And again, you snip: what is your age and what journals have you
> >> > published in?
> >> He publishes in mfw - why does he need to publish in 'journals' to have
> >> credibility?
> >
> >You have either not been following the thread or you are retarded.
> >Perhaps both.
> >
> >> - you are snobby little prick Willy
> >
> >And you are almost as stupid as he is, if that's possible.
>
> David's just filling in for Hudson.

very funny - (at least you own a sense of humour)

John HUDSON
October 1st 04, 08:42 AM
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 18:56:23 -0400, John M. Williams
> wrote:

>Will Brink > wrote:
>>"David" > wrote:
>>
>>> >
>>> > And again, you snip: what is your age and what journals have you
>>> > published in?
>>> He publishes in mfw - why does he need to publish in 'journals' to have
>>> credibility?
>>
>>You have either not been following the thread or you are retarded.
>>Perhaps both.
>>
>>> - you are snobby little prick Willy
>>
>>And you are almost as stupid as he is, if that's possible.
>
>David's just filling in for Hudson.

And doing a damn fine job Sir!!

Have a great weekend; I'm back, and I intend to wind down the holiday
doing just that!!

TFIF!!

John HUDSON
October 1st 04, 08:45 AM
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 19:19:52 -0400, Will Brink
> wrote:

>In article >,
> John M. Williams > wrote:
>
>> Will Brink > wrote:
>> >"David" > wrote:
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> > And again, you snip: what is your age and what journals have you
>> >> > published in?
>> >> He publishes in mfw - why does he need to publish in 'journals' to have
>> >> credibility?
>> >
>> >You have either not been following the thread or you are retarded.
>> >Perhaps both.
>> >
>> >> - you are snobby little prick Willy
>> >
>> >And you are almost as stupid as he is, if that's possible.
>>
>> David's just filling in for Hudson.
>
>And doing a poor job of it at that.

I shall take that as a compliment Will, thank you kind Sir!! ;o)

However, you underestimate David at your peril!!

Have a great weekend; I've just had a great holiday and will be using
this one to wind down!! ;o)

TFIF!!

John HUDSON
October 1st 04, 09:08 AM
On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 00:01:53 GMT, "David" >
wrote:

>
>"Will Brink" > wrote in message
...
>> In article >,
>> John M. Williams > wrote:
>>
>> > Will Brink > wrote:
>> > >"David" > wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> >
>> > >> > And again, you snip: what is your age and what journals have you
>> > >> > published in?
>> > >> He publishes in mfw - why does he need to publish in 'journals' to
>have
>> > >> credibility?
>> > >
>> > >You have either not been following the thread or you are retarded.
>> > >Perhaps both.
>> > >
>> > >> - you are snobby little prick Willy
>> > >
>> > >And you are almost as stupid as he is, if that's possible.
>> >
>> > David's just filling in for Hudson.
>>
>> And doing a poor job of it at that.
>>
>that's an enormous compliment for Hudson
>

You hide your light under a bushel David.

You have been doing a great job resisting the hyenas in my absence!! I
see Tiger, Carl and Bob have become the new targets and they are doing
a sterling job by way of retaliation.

Once more into the breach dear friends!!

Have a great weekend - you know I intend to!! ;o)

TFIF!!

David
October 1st 04, 09:27 AM
"John HUDSON" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 00:01:53 GMT, "David" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Will Brink" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> In article >,
> >> John M. Williams > wrote:
> >>
> >> > Will Brink > wrote:
> >> > >"David" > wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > And again, you snip: what is your age and what journals have you
> >> > >> > published in?
> >> > >> He publishes in mfw - why does he need to publish in 'journals' to
> >have
> >> > >> credibility?
> >> > >
> >> > >You have either not been following the thread or you are retarded.
> >> > >Perhaps both.
> >> > >
> >> > >> - you are snobby little prick Willy
> >> > >
> >> > >And you are almost as stupid as he is, if that's possible.
> >> >
> >> > David's just filling in for Hudson.
> >>
> >> And doing a poor job of it at that.
> >>
> >that's an enormous compliment for Hudson
> >
>
> You hide your light under a bushel David.
>
> You have been doing a great job resisting the hyenas in my absence!! I
> see Tiger, Carl and Bob have become the new targets and they are doing
> a sterling job by way of retaliation.
>
> Once more into the breach dear friends!!
>
> Have a great weekend - you know I intend to!! ;o)
>
> TFIF!!
>
Ha ha!! Wasn't easy playing with one man down - we're at full strength
again. Welcome back!

Will Brink
October 1st 04, 02:16 PM
In article >,
John Hanson > wrote:

>
> Doesn't appear that way to me. How about just citing the above and
> settle this thing now.

Don't hold your breath John. When finally backed into a corner, he will
cut and run as always. Asking for proof of any claim has that effect on
him. He claims superior knowledge of research methodology and
interpretive skills over John or myself (yet continuously shows he can't
understand half of what is posted or simple comments I make), yet
refuses to supply the journals he has published in or his educational
creds. He calls me a geeser, but refuses to give his age or supply a
pic. He snips out what ever clearly shows his lack ok knowledge and or
contains a question he cant answer. It's typical troll behavior

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

Will Brink
October 1st 04, 06:35 PM
In article >,
Carl Nisarel > wrote:

> But heard, half-heard in the silliness, Will Brink writes;
>
> > Asking for proof of any claim has that effect on
> > him.
>
> It has an effect on you, Willy.
>
> You dance.
>
> I provided the quote you wrote.
>
> You danced.
>
> You're a predictable little weasel, Willy.

And your posts here proves EVERYTHING I said. you snipped, avoided, and
ran. What's your age and which journals have you published in?

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

John M. Williams
October 1st 04, 06:59 PM
Carl Nisarel > wrote:

>But heard, half-heard in the silliness, John Hanson writes;
>
>>>> I repeat: "Please cite the post where I stated that
>>>> Lott's working paper was a peer-reviewed article."
>>>
>>>You are mindlessly repeating your strawman argument.
>>
>> Doesn't appear that way to me. How about just citing the
>> above and settle this thing now.
>
>Read my claim.
>
>I wrote:
>"You cited one of Lott's (still unpublished) working papers.
>You weren't aware that a working paper is not a reviewed
>article."
>
>Johnny created the strawman by changing to something else.

Wrong. You lie. I repeat: "Please cite the post where I stated that
Lott's working paper was a peer-reviewed article."

Do it now. Here's the link:

http://www.google.com/grphp?hl=en&tab=wg&q=

John M. Williams
October 1st 04, 07:03 PM
Carl Nisarel > bleated:

>But heard, half-heard in the silliness, John M. Williams
>writes;
>
>>
>> "APA style requires that PARENTHETICAL CITATIONS in the
>> text refer to entries on the list of REFERENCES CITED at
>> the end of the paper."
>> http://library.uww.edu/GUIDES/APACITE.htm
>
>Yes, so? You just demonstrated that my assertion is perfectly
>correct. (Author, year) is the correct APA style.

Only if followed by full references.

>Guess what, Johnny? MFW isn't a journal article, it's a
>usenet group.

And thus, the only place where a phony like you can pretend to have
academic credentials.

Carl Nisrael
October 1st 04, 07:23 PM
Carl Nisarel > wrote:
>
>My publication record is of no relevance to the validity of
>Kleck's statement.

Recent Usenet Headers:

Re "Carl Nisarel" Troll Rejected from Alt.Politics.Immigration ( ...
Re: OT - Carl Nisarel mentally unstable?
Carl Nisarel - Known Troll
Internet Stalker "Carl Nisarel" Needs to Lose All of his accounts
Re: Carl Nisarel's Whining and Avoidance of the Real Issue
Re: Carl Nisarel is Whining and Trolling as usual
Re: OT - Carl Nisarel mentally MIA?
Re: Carl Nisarel's Paranoia

John M. Williams
October 1st 04, 07:36 PM
Carl Nisarel > wrote:

>But heard, half-heard in the silliness, John M. Williams
>writes;
>
>> Carl Nisarel > wrote:
>>
>>>But heard, half-heard in the silliness, John Hanson writes;
>>>
>>>>>> I repeat: "Please cite the post where I stated that
>>>>>> Lott's working paper was a peer-reviewed article."
>>>>>
>>>>>You are mindlessly repeating your strawman argument.
>>>>
>>>> Doesn't appear that way to me. How about just citing the
>>>> above and settle this thing now.
>>>
>>>Read my claim.
>>>
>>>I wrote:
>>>"You cited one of Lott's (still unpublished) working
>>>papers. You weren't aware that a working paper is not a
>>>reviewed article."
>>>
>>>Johnny created the strawman by changing to something else.
>>
>> Wrong.
>
>Yes, you are wrong, Johnny.
>
>Just like you were wrong when you claimed that APA style
>requires volume and issue numbers in the citations.
>
>APA style doesn't even require volume and issue numbers in
>the references.

APA Citation Guides:

Journal Article
(one author)
Reference:
Maki, R.H. (1982). Categorization effects which occur
in comparative judgment tasks. Memory &
Cognition, 10, 252-264.
Journal Article
(two or more authors)
Reference:
Atkinson, R.C., & Shiffrin, R.M. (1971). The control of
short-term memory. Scientific American, 225,
82-90.
http://library.osu.edu/sites/guides/apagd.html

Journals, Magazines, and Newspapers:
References to periodical articles must include the following elements:
author(s), date of publication, article title, journal title, volume
number, issue number (if applicable), and page numbers.
Journal Article, one author:
Mellers, B. A. (2000). Choice and the relative pleasure of
consequences. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 910-924.
Journal Article, two authors:
Klimoski, R., & Palmer, S. (1993). The ADA and the hiring process in
organizations. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research,
45(2), 10-36.
http://campusgw.library.cornell.edu/newhelp/res_strategy/citing/apa.html

Didn't you ever wonder what those numbers at the end were, Carl?

John M. Williams
October 1st 04, 07:46 PM
Carl Nisarel > wrote:

>The chicken**** who is being stupid should know:
>
>> X-Complaints-To:

Do you need a waaaaaaaaaaaambulance, Carl?

John M. Williams
October 1st 04, 07:47 PM
Carl Nisarel > wrote:

>John Williams uses these settings:
>
>Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
>X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.91/32.564
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Yes, I do.

John M. Williams
October 1st 04, 07:50 PM
Carl Nisarel > wrote:

>The stupid fool known as John Williams posted--
>
>> Recent Usenet Headers:
>
>Heh. Johnny's spending hours on Google looking up posts.

Really, Carl? Here's a research tip. This is how easy it is:

http://tinyurl.com/4a68x

John M. Williams
October 1st 04, 08:34 PM
Carl Nisarel > wrote:

>But heard, half-heard in the silliness, John M. Williams
>writes;
>
>>>APA style doesn't even require volume and issue numbers in
>>>the references.
>>
>> APA Citation Guides:
>>
>> Journal Article
>> (one author)
>> Reference:
>> Maki, R.H. (1982). Categorization effects which occur
>> in comparative judgment tasks. Memory &
>> Cognition, 10, 252-264.
>
>You just proved that I was correct, Johnny.
>
>If you think you're right, feel free to point out the issue
>numbers in the reference above.

Weak trolling, Carl. Issue numbers must be included with journals
where issues have continuing pagination instead of beginning with page
one, as the example you snipped:

Journal Article, two authors:
Klimoski, R., & Palmer, S. (1993). The ADA and the hiring process in
organizations. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research,
45(2), 10-36.
http://campusgw.library.cornell.edu/newhelp/res_strategy/citing/apa.html

What exactly is it that you research, Carl, aside from porn mags?

John M. Williams
October 1st 04, 08:35 PM
Carl Nisarel > wrote:

>But heard, half-heard in the silliness, John M. Williams
>writes;
>
>> Carl Nisarel > wrote:
>>
>>>The chicken**** who is being stupid should know:
>>>
>>>> X-Complaints-To:
>>
>> Do you need a waaaaaaaaaaaambulance, Carl?
>
>You do, Johnny.
>
>Only a chicken**** like you would resort to changing your
>name.

Say "Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!" Carl.

http://tinyurl.com/4a68x

John M. Williams
October 1st 04, 08:36 PM
Carl Nisarel > wrote:

>But heard, half-heard in the silliness, John M. Williams
>writes;
>
>> Carl Nisarel > wrote:
>>
>>>John Williams uses these settings:
>>>
>>>Organization: Posted via Supernews,
>http://www.supernews.com
>>>X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.91/32.564
>>>MIME-Version: 1.0
>>>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>>>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>>
>> Yes, I do.
>
>It's good that you demonstrated that you're just a childish
>chicken****.

Say "Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!" Carl.

http://tinyurl.com/4a68x

John M. Williams
October 1st 04, 08:37 PM
Carl Nisarel > wrote:

>But heard, half-heard in the silliness, John M. Williams
>writes;
>
>> Carl Nisarel > wrote:
>>
>>>The stupid fool known as John Williams posted--
>>>
>>>> Recent Usenet Headers:
>>>
>>>Heh. Johnny's spending hours on Google looking up posts.
>>
>> Really, Carl?
>
>Yes, really, Johnny.
>
>Yet you're too stupid to find the posts where you cited one
>of Lott's still unpublished working papers.
>
>Either that or your too ashamed about doing it.

There's no post where I called a working paper a peer-reviewed
article.

Carl Nisarel
October 1st 04, 10:03 PM
But heard, half-heard in the silliness, John M. Williams
writes;

> Carl Nisarel > wrote:
....

>>It's good that you demonstrated that you're just a childish
>>chicken****.
>
> Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

And you continue to do so.


--
"If any question why we died
Tell them, because our fathers lied."
- Kipling (after his son was killed in WWI)

Carl Nisarel
October 1st 04, 10:04 PM
But heard, half-heard in the silliness, John M. Williams
writes;

> Carl Nisarel > wrote:
....

>>Yet you're too stupid to find the posts where you cited one
>>of Lott's still unpublished working papers.
>>
>>Either that or your too ashamed about doing it.
>
> There's no post where I called a working paper a peer-
> reviewed article.

Once again you create a strawman.

It's a simple question, Johnny. Did you cite a working paper
by John Lott?

Yes or No.




--
"If any question why we died
Tell them, because our fathers lied."
- Kipling (after his son was killed in WWI)

Proton Soup
October 1st 04, 10:50 PM
On 1 Oct 2004 21:02:09 GMT, Carl Nisarel
> wrote:

>But heard, half-heard in the silliness, John M. Williams
>writes;
>
>> "Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!"
>
>It's good you can display your true self, Johnny.

Alright John, now that you've reeled him in, how about cutting the
line?

-----------
Proton Soup

"Homo sapiens non urinat in ventum."

David
October 1st 04, 10:51 PM
"Carl Nisarel" > wrote in message
...
> But heard, half-heard in the silliness, John M. Williams
> writes;
>
> > Carl Nisarel > wrote:
> ...
>
> >>It's good that you demonstrated that you're just a childish
> >>chicken****.
> >
> > Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!
>
> And you continue to do so.
>
dunno Carl. you may be pushing uphill here

Will Brink
October 1st 04, 10:52 PM
In article >,
John M. Williams > wrote:

> Carl Nisarel > wrote:
>
> >But heard, half-heard in the silliness, John M. Williams
> >writes;
> >
> >>>APA style doesn't even require volume and issue numbers in
> >>>the references.
> >>
> >> APA Citation Guides:
> >>
> >> Journal Article
> >> (one author)
> >> Reference:
> >> Maki, R.H. (1982). Categorization effects which occur
> >> in comparative judgment tasks. Memory &
> >> Cognition, 10, 252-264.
> >
> >You just proved that I was correct, Johnny.
> >
> >If you think you're right, feel free to point out the issue
> >numbers in the reference above.
>
> Weak trolling, Carl. Issue numbers must be included with journals
> where issues have continuing pagination instead of beginning with page
> one, as the example you snipped:

But he always snipps John. That appears all he is able to do at this
point: snip, avoid, and run. Must be French...

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

Will Brink
October 1st 04, 10:53 PM
In article >,
Carl Nisarel > wrote:

>
> ...
>
> Now, just what are your academic credentials, Johnny?

How old are you and which journals have you published in? Do you find
those hard questions to answer?

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

Will Brink
October 1st 04, 10:53 PM
In article >,
Carl Nisarel > wrote:

> But heard, half-heard in the silliness, Will Brink writes;
>
>
> > That's way too many big words John,
>
> We know it's too many big words for you, Willy.

More cowardly snipping. How old are you and which journals have you
published in?

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

Will Brink
October 1st 04, 10:55 PM
In article >,
Carl Nisarel > wrote:

> But heard, half-heard in the silliness, Will Brink writes;
>
> > In article >,
> > Carl Nisarel > wrote:
> >
> >> But heard, half-heard in the silliness, Will Brink writes;
> >>
> >> > In article >,
> >> > Carl Nisarel > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> But heard, half-heard in the silliness, Will Brink
> >> >> writes;
> >> >>
> >> >> >> Will's assertion was that Wolfgang's comments were
> >> >> >> part of the peer-review.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > And you are of course telling yet another lie. Please
> >> >> > cut and paste where I made any such assertion.
> >> >>
> >> >> You wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> ---
> >> >>
> >> >> Marvin Wolfgang, the late Director of the Sellin Center
> >> >> for Studies in Criminology and Criminal Law at the
> >> >> University of Pennsylvania, considered by many to be
> >> >> the foremost criminologist in the country, wrote in
> >> >> that same issue, ...
> >> >>
> >> >> So this data has been peer-reviewed by a top (anti
> >> >> gun!) criminologist in this country
> >> >>
> >> >> ---
> >> >>
> >> >> In that post, you stated that Wolfgang's opinion was a
> >> >> peer- review of the journal article.
> >> >>
> >> >> Why are you lying, Will?
> >> >
> >> > By the above, you clearly show you have no idea what the
> >> > process of peer review is.
> >>
> >> You're dancing, Willy.
> >>
> >> > I state again, the above does
> >> > not in any way claim Dr Wofgang's comments were peer
> >> > reviewed,
> >>
> >> Your comment of "a top (anti gun!) criminologist" clearly
> >> was referring to Wolfgang.
> >>
> >> It's good to see that you know you ****ed up and now are
> >> trying to dance away from your error.
> >
> > Still waiting for that info Carl.
>
> It's right in front of your face, Willy.

It is? Your age, creds, and journals you have published as asked for 20
times? Please oh please Carl, show me the error of my ways where I
missed that info.

>
> Keep dancing.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

Will Brink
October 1st 04, 10:56 PM
In article >,
Carl Nisarel > wrote:

> But heard, half-heard in the silliness, Will Brink writes;
>
> > In article >,
> > Carl Nisarel > wrote:
> >
> >> But heard, half-heard in the silliness, Will Brink writes;
> >>
> >> > In article >,
> >> > Carl Nisarel > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> But heard, half-heard in the silliness, Will Brink
> >> >> writes;
> >> >>
> >> >> > And what did Kleck have to say about Lott?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "Lott has convincingly demonstrated there is no
> >> >> > substantial detriment" from "shall issue" laws."
> >> >>
> >> >> No, this is what Kleck wrote about Lott's research
> >> >
> >> > No? That's a direct quote stupid.
> >>
> >> Your comment is stupid.
> >>
> >> >> "More likely, the declines in crime coinciding with
> >> >> relaxation of carry laws were largely attributable to
> >> >> other factors not controlled in the Lott and Mustard
> >> >> analysis."
> >> >
> >> > Again, you show a total lack of reading skills here. The
> >> > two quotes don't conflict at all.
> >>
> >> Again, you dance.
> >>
> >> You've lost it, Willy. You're sputtering.
> >
> > And again,
>
> you sputter and dance.

So asking for your age and journals you published in is not a reasonable
request and is = dancing?

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

Will Brink
October 1st 04, 10:57 PM
In article >,
Carl Nisarel > wrote:

> But heard, half-heard in the silliness, Will Brink writes;
>
> > And your posts here proves EVERYTHING I said.
>
> Yes, it does. You dance.
>
> I provided the quote you wrote. You danced.
>
> >> >> Marvin Wolfgang, the late Director of the Sellin Center
> >> >> for Studies in Criminology and Criminal Law at the
> >> >> University of Pennsylvania, considered by many to be
> >> >> the foremost criminologist in the country, wrote in
> >> >> that same issue, ...
> >> >> ...
> >> >> So this data has been peer-reviewed by a top (anti
> >> >> gun!) criminologist in this country
>
> Go ahead and try to pretend that your reference of "a top
> (anti gun!) criminologist" was not referring to Marvin
> Wolfgang.

Of course it was.

>
> You're a predictable little weasel, Willy.
>
> BTW, Willy, what's your age and which journals have you
> published in?

I asked first and will be happy to supply that info on proof of my
questions being asked.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

Will Brink
October 1st 04, 11:02 PM
In article >,
John M. Williams > wrote:

> Carl Nisarel > wrote:
>
> >But heard, half-heard in the silliness, John M. Williams
> >writes;
> >
> >> Carl Nisarel > wrote:
> >>
> >>>The stupid fool known as John Williams posted--
> >>>
> >>>> Recent Usenet Headers:
> >>>
> >>>Heh. Johnny's spending hours on Google looking up posts.
> >>
> >> Really, Carl?
> >
> >Yes, really, Johnny.
> >
> >Yet you're too stupid to find the posts where you cited one
> >of Lott's still unpublished working papers.
> >
> >Either that or your too ashamed about doing it.
>
> There's no post where I called a working paper a peer-reviewed
> article.

There is no post I claim Marvin Wolfgang's comments were peer reviewed,
but he is unable to follow simple lines of logic. Shocking he is so well
liked on other groups.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

Lyle McDonald
October 1st 04, 11:09 PM
Proton Soup wrote:
> On 1 Oct 2004 21:02:09 GMT, Carl Nisarel
> > wrote:
>
>
>>But heard, half-heard in the silliness, John M. Williams
>>writes;
>>
>>
>>>"Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!"
>>
>>It's good you can display your true self, Johnny.
>
>
> Alright John, now that you've reeled him in, how about cutting the
> line?

Yeah, right.
If John quit baiting the trolls, they'd leave and his empty life would
have even less meaning.

Lyle
P.S. Nice response, John, with the 'waaaahhh', I'm sure such cutting wit
and a command of the English language must serve you in great stead in
the courtroom as you prosecute the Amish.

John M. Williams
October 1st 04, 11:13 PM
Proton Soup > wrote:

>On 1 Oct 2004 21:02:09 GMT, Carl Nisarel
> wrote:
>
>>But heard, half-heard in the silliness, John M. Williams
>>writes;
>>
>>> "Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!"
>>
>>It's good you can display your true self, Johnny.
>
>Alright John, now that you've reeled him in, how about cutting the
>line?

I suppose so. He's very angry.

Will Brink
October 1st 04, 11:15 PM
In article >,
Carl Nisarel > wrote:

> But heard, half-heard in the silliness, David writes;
>
> >> And again, you snip: what is your age and what journals
> >> have you published in?
> > He publishes in mfw - why does he need to publish in
> > 'journals' to have credibility?
>
> I don't.

Others don't, you do, as you are the one making the claims.

>
> Willy got caught in a lie so he's trying to change the
> subject.

Again, more proof your reading skills are even poorer than your
scientific skills.

>
> My publication record is of no relevance to the validity of
> Kleck's statement.

As always, that made no sense at all. More real statements from Kleck:


Point Blank, winner of the 1993 award for best book in a three-year
period from the American Society of Criminology:

³However, as a modest body of reliable evidence (and an enormous body of
not-so-reliable evidence) accumulated, many of the most able specialists
in this area shifted from the Œanti-gun¹ position to a more skeptical
stance, in which it was negatively argued that the best available
evidence does not convincingly or consistently support the anti-gun
position. Š[Subsequent research] has caused me to move beyond even the
skeptic position. I now believe that the best currently available
evidence, imperfect though it is (and must always be), indicates that
general gun availability has no measurable net positive effect on rates
of homicide, suicide, robbery, assault, rape, or burglary in the
U[nited] S[tates]. This is not the same as saying gun availability has
no effects on violence‹it has many effects on the likelihood of attack,
injury, death, and crime completion, but these effects work in both
violence-increasing and violence-decreasing directions, with the effects
largely canceling out. For example, when aggressors have guns, they are
(1) less likely to physically attack their victims, (2) less likely to
injure the victim given an attack, but (3) more likely to kill the
victim, given an injury. Further, when victims have guns, it is less
likely aggressors will attack or injure them and less likely they will
lose property in a robbery. At the aggregate level, in both the best
available time series and cross-sectional studies, the overall net
effect of gun availability on total rates of violence is not
significantly different from zero. The positive associations often found
between aggregate levels of violence and gun ownership appear to be
primarily due to violence increasing gun ownership, rather than the
reverse. Gun availability does affect the rates of gun violence (e.g.
the gun homicide rate, gun suicide rate, gun robbery rate) and the
fraction of violent acts which involve guns (e.g. the percent of
homicides, suicides or robberies committed with guns); it just does not
affect total rates of violence (total homicide rate, total suicide rate,
total robbery rate, etc.)²

As has always been the case, Kleck feels it's a wash, Lott feels his
data supports a stronger association.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

John M. Williams
October 1st 04, 11:16 PM
Carl Nisarel > wrote:

>But heard, half-heard in the silliness, John M. Williams
>writes;
>
>> Carl Nisarel > wrote:
>...
>
>>>Yet you're too stupid to find the posts where you cited one
>>>of Lott's still unpublished working papers.
>>>
>>>Either that or your too ashamed about doing it.
>>
>> There's no post where I called a working paper a peer-
>> reviewed article.
>
>Once again you create a strawman.

I responded to original assertion. If you want a response to your
binary question, admit that my statement is true.

John M. Williams
October 2nd 04, 01:39 AM
Lyle McDonald > wrote:
>P.S. Nice response, John, with the 'waaaahhh'

Thanks, Lyle. It seems to underlie a lot of your comments, too.

John Hanson
October 2nd 04, 04:05 AM
On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 09:08:40 +0100, John HUDSON >
wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

>You hide your light under a bushel David.
>
>You have been doing a great job resisting the hyenas in my absence!! I
>see Tiger, Carl and Bob have become the new targets and they are doing
>a sterling job by way of retaliation.
>
Tiger, Carl and Bob would like nothing better than to see your head
carved off by islamofascists.

John HUDSON
October 2nd 04, 05:04 PM
On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 22:05:40 -0500, John Hanson
> wrote:

>On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 09:08:40 +0100, John HUDSON >
>wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>
>>You hide your light under a bushel David.
>>
>>You have been doing a great job resisting the hyenas in my absence!! I
>>see Tiger, Carl and Bob have become the new targets and they are doing
>>a sterling job by way of retaliation.
>>
>Tiger, Carl and Bob would like nothing better than to see your head
>carved off by islamofascists.

I would take great exception to that JH but I must take as I find and
not one move has been made by this redoubtable trio to separate my
head from my heart.

My observation is really more to do with the irony of those that
"troll" the most in this group, brazenly labelling others as
"trolls"!!

Have a great weekend John - I am!! ;o)

John Hanson
October 2nd 04, 08:56 PM
On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 17:04:22 +0100, John HUDSON >
wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

>On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 22:05:40 -0500, John Hanson
> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 09:08:40 +0100, John HUDSON >
>>wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>>
>>>You hide your light under a bushel David.
>>>
>>>You have been doing a great job resisting the hyenas in my absence!! I
>>>see Tiger, Carl and Bob have become the new targets and they are doing
>>>a sterling job by way of retaliation.
>>>
>>Tiger, Carl and Bob would like nothing better than to see your head
>>carved off by islamofascists.
>
>I would take great exception to that JH but I must take as I find and
>not one move has been made by this redoubtable trio to separate my
>head from my heart.

I didn't say they were going to. Only that they'd love to see you
blindfolded and bound in front of some ****ing Arabs.

>
>My observation is really more to do with the irony of those that
>"troll" the most in this group, brazenly labelling others as
>"trolls"!!
>
>Have a great weekend John - I am!! ;o)

I'm going to certainly try!

John HUDSON
October 2nd 04, 11:48 PM
On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 14:56:16 -0500, John Hanson
> wrote:

>On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 17:04:22 +0100, John HUDSON >
>wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>
>>On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 22:05:40 -0500, John Hanson
> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 09:08:40 +0100, John HUDSON >
>>>wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>>>
>>>>You hide your light under a bushel David.
>>>>
>>>>You have been doing a great job resisting the hyenas in my absence!! I
>>>>see Tiger, Carl and Bob have become the new targets and they are doing
>>>>a sterling job by way of retaliation.
>>>>
>>>Tiger, Carl and Bob would like nothing better than to see your head
>>>carved off by islamofascists.
>>
>>I would take great exception to that JH but I must take as I find and
>>not one move has been made by this redoubtable trio to separate my
>>head from my heart.
>
>I didn't say they were going to. Only that they'd love to see you
>blindfolded and bound in front of some ****ing Arabs.

Me personally or all of us ****ing infidels? ;o)

>
>>
>>My observation is really more to do with the irony of those that
>>"troll" the most in this group, brazenly labelling others as
>>"trolls"!!
>>
>>Have a great weekend John - I am!! ;o)
>
>I'm going to certainly try!

How's the decking coming on, or are you spinning it out so that you
have an excuse to drink more beer? ;o)

HAGW!!

John Hanson
October 3rd 04, 01:50 AM
On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 23:48:15 +0100, John HUDSON >
wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

>On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 14:56:16 -0500, John Hanson
> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 17:04:22 +0100, John HUDSON >
>>wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>>
>>>On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 22:05:40 -0500, John Hanson
> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 09:08:40 +0100, John HUDSON >
>>>>wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>>>>
>>>>>You hide your light under a bushel David.
>>>>>
>>>>>You have been doing a great job resisting the hyenas in my absence!! I
>>>>>see Tiger, Carl and Bob have become the new targets and they are doing
>>>>>a sterling job by way of retaliation.
>>>>>
>>>>Tiger, Carl and Bob would like nothing better than to see your head
>>>>carved off by islamofascists.
>>>
>>>I would take great exception to that JH but I must take as I find and
>>>not one move has been made by this redoubtable trio to separate my
>>>head from my heart.
>>
>>I didn't say they were going to. Only that they'd love to see you
>>blindfolded and bound in front of some ****ing Arabs.
>
>Me personally or all of us ****ing infidels? ;o)
>
Any WASP type person...even there fellow countrymen if they think it
will look bad for the US.
>>>
>>>My observation is really more to do with the irony of those that
>>>"troll" the most in this group, brazenly labelling others as
>>>"trolls"!!
>>>
>>>Have a great weekend John - I am!! ;o)
>>
>>I'm going to certainly try!
>
>How's the decking coming on, or are you spinning it out so that you
>have an excuse to drink more beer? ;o)
>
I looked at it today. I may do something with it tomorrow though but
no beer drinking as I'm on call.

>HAGW!!

Next weekend will be better.

John HUDSON
October 3rd 04, 11:08 AM
On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 19:50:23 -0500, John Hanson
> wrote:

>On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 23:48:15 +0100, John HUDSON >
>wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>
>>On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 14:56:16 -0500, John Hanson
> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 17:04:22 +0100, John HUDSON >
>>>wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 22:05:40 -0500, John Hanson
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 09:08:40 +0100, John HUDSON >
>>>>>wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>>>>>
>>>>>>You hide your light under a bushel David.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You have been doing a great job resisting the hyenas in my absence!! I
>>>>>>see Tiger, Carl and Bob have become the new targets and they are doing
>>>>>>a sterling job by way of retaliation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>Tiger, Carl and Bob would like nothing better than to see your head
>>>>>carved off by islamofascists.
>>>>
>>>>I would take great exception to that JH but I must take as I find and
>>>>not one move has been made by this redoubtable trio to separate my
>>>>head from my heart.
>>>
>>>I didn't say they were going to. Only that they'd love to see you
>>>blindfolded and bound in front of some ****ing Arabs.
>>
>>Me personally or all of us ****ing infidels? ;o)
>>
>Any WASP type person...even there fellow countrymen if they think it
>will look bad for the US.
>>>>
>>>>My observation is really more to do with the irony of those that
>>>>"troll" the most in this group, brazenly labelling others as
>>>>"trolls"!!
>>>>
>>>>Have a great weekend John - I am!! ;o)
>>>
>>>I'm going to certainly try!
>>
>>How's the decking coming on, or are you spinning it out so that you
>>have an excuse to drink more beer? ;o)
>>
>I looked at it today. I may do something with it tomorrow though but
>no beer drinking as I'm on call.

Now that's sad JH, I'll have one for you!! ;o)

>
>>HAGW!!
>
>Next weekend will be better.

All to look forward to!! ;o)

Will Brink
October 3rd 04, 03:25 PM
In article >,
John Hanson > wrote:


> >
> I looked at it today. I may do something with it tomorrow though but
> no beer drinking as I'm on call.

On call for what? BTW, as a "gun head" that you are, have you seen these
grips for 1911? They are all the rage. They are machined from T-6
aircraft aluminum. Ordered a pair of tactical version for my 1911. See:
http://www.ajaxgrips.com/ajax/alumagrips?set=01


>
> >HAGW!!
>
> Next weekend will be better.
>

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

John Hanson
October 3rd 04, 05:37 PM
On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 10:25:51 -0400, Will Brink
> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

>In article >,
> John Hanson > wrote:
>
>
>> >
>> I looked at it today. I may do something with it tomorrow though but
>> no beer drinking as I'm on call.
>
>On call for what? BTW, as a "gun head" that you are, have you seen these
>grips for 1911? They are all the rage. They are machined from T-6
>aircraft aluminum. Ordered a pair of tactical version for my 1911. See:
>http://www.ajaxgrips.com/ajax/alumagrips?set=01
>
>
On call for work. I'm on call every nine weeks from Wednesday to
Wednesday. I haven't even gotten a call yet. I was hoping for one
today as it's double time and a 4 hour minimum.

Those grips look cool but I wonder what they'd be like at -20 degrees.
It would be interesting to find out.

Will Brink
October 3rd 04, 06:05 PM
In article >,
John Hanson > wrote:

> On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 10:25:51 -0400, Will Brink
> > wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>
> >In article >,
> > John Hanson > wrote:
> >
> >
> >> >
> >> I looked at it today. I may do something with it tomorrow though but
> >> no beer drinking as I'm on call.
> >
> >On call for what? BTW, as a "gun head" that you are, have you seen these
> >grips for 1911? They are all the rage. They are machined from T-6
> >aircraft aluminum. Ordered a pair of tactical version for my 1911. See:
> >http://www.ajaxgrips.com/ajax/alumagrips?set=01
> >
> >
> On call for work.


I figured that part (duh), but what is it that you do?

> I'm on call every nine weeks from Wednesday to
> Wednesday. I haven't even gotten a call yet. I was hoping for one
> today as it's double time and a 4 hour minimum.
>
> Those grips look cool but I wonder what they'd be like at -20 degrees.
> It would be interesting to find out.

At www.1911forum.com (you did know there was such a place right?!)
several people asked that question, and all said they warm up so fast it
was not a problem. Besides, my thought was the gun is under clothes and
will be much closer to your body temp then external, and if you pulled
it to use it, the last of your problems is a cold gun grip...see link if
interested:

http://www.1911forum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=38839
>

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

John Hanson
October 3rd 04, 06:55 PM
On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 13:05:58 -0400, Will Brink
> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

>In article >,
> John Hanson > wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 10:25:51 -0400, Will Brink
>> > wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>>
>> >In article >,
>> > John Hanson > wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> I looked at it today. I may do something with it tomorrow though but
>> >> no beer drinking as I'm on call.
>> >
>> >On call for what? BTW, as a "gun head" that you are, have you seen these
>> >grips for 1911? They are all the rage. They are machined from T-6
>> >aircraft aluminum. Ordered a pair of tactical version for my 1911. See:
>> >http://www.ajaxgrips.com/ajax/alumagrips?set=01
>> >
>> >
>> On call for work.
>
>
>I figured that part (duh), but what is it that you do?

I'm an automation and systems tech. I maintain large integrated HVAC,
fire, card access and camera systems which are all networked and
controlled by PCs. Plus, I also oversee the installations of some of
these systems. Tomorrow we are starting an upgrade of a fire alarm
system and the front end (the front end is the server and software
that allows operators to control these systems) in one building of a
complex that I maintain.

Next year we will upgrade the HVAC controls in that building. Right
now, the controls there are 1970s technology. Very old and somewhat
stupid but it's damn near bullet proof. We will be putting the fire
controllers (1 building) and HVAC controllers of 2 other buildings in
this "complex" of three buildings (those controllers are much newer.
There are 29 HVAC controllers and 10 fire controllers with about 2000
points on them.) on this new front end also. The rub is that all of
these systems must be up at the end of the day. If not, I don't go
home.

>
>> I'm on call every nine weeks from Wednesday to
>> Wednesday. I haven't even gotten a call yet. I was hoping for one
>> today as it's double time and a 4 hour minimum.
>>
>> Those grips look cool but I wonder what they'd be like at -20 degrees.
>> It would be interesting to find out.
>
>At www.1911forum.com (you did know there was such a place right?!)
>several people asked that question, and all said they warm up so fast it
>was not a problem. Besides, my thought was the gun is under clothes and
>will be much closer to your body temp then external, and if you pulled
>it to use it, the last of your problems is a cold gun grip...see link if
>interested:
>
>http://www.1911forum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=38839
>>
I figured it would heat up in a hurry. I was just thinking about
bringing it to the range in the winter, not so much carrying it.

Will Brink
October 3rd 04, 07:04 PM
In article >,
Carl Nisarel > wrote:

> But heard, half-heard in the silliness, Will Brink writes;
>
> > Carl Nisarel > wrote:
> ...
>
> >> My publication record is of no relevance to the validity
> >> of Kleck's statement.
> >
> > As always, that made no sense at all.
>
> That's because you're as dumb as a brick, Willy.
>
> The roids have fried your brain.

Yes, he snips, avoids, and runs! How old are you and which journals have
you published in?

>
> ....

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

Will Brink
October 3rd 04, 07:04 PM
In article >,
Carl Nisarel > wrote:

> But heard, half-heard in the silliness, Will Brink writes;
>
> ...
>
> > There is no post I claim Marvin Wolfgang's comments were
> > peer reviewed,
>
> You're as dumb as a brick, Willy and, as usual, you're creating
> a strawman.


How old are you and which journals have you published in? Is that a
strawman?

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

Will Brink
October 3rd 04, 07:05 PM
In article >,
Carl Nisarel > wrote:

> But heard, half-heard in the silliness, Will Brink writes;
>
> > In article >,
> > Carl Nisarel > wrote:
> >
> >> But heard, half-heard in the silliness, Will Brink writes;
> >>
> >> > And your posts here proves EVERYTHING I said.
> >>
> >> Yes, it does. You dance.
> >>
> >> I provided the quote you wrote. You danced.
> >>
> >> >> >> Marvin Wolfgang, the late Director of the Sellin
> >> >> >> Center for Studies in Criminology and Criminal Law
> >> >> >> at the University of Pennsylvania, considered by
> >> >> >> many to be the foremost criminologist in the
> >> >> >> country, wrote in that same issue, ...
> >> >> >> ...
> >> >> >> So this data has been peer-reviewed by a top (anti
> >> >> >> gun!) criminologist in this country
> >>
> >> Go ahead and try to pretend that your reference of "a top
> >> (anti gun!) criminologist" was not referring to Marvin
> >> Wolfgang.
> >
> > Of course it was.
>
> Thus you incorrectly claimed that Wolfgang peer-reviewed
> Kleck's article.

I claimed no such thing nor did I need to.

> You demonstrated that you don't know the
> meaning of the term 'peer-review'

How old are you and which journals have you published in?

>
> Now, go ahead and deny it again.

What?

>
>
> >> You're a predictable little weasel, Willy.
> >>
> >> BTW, Willy, what's your age and which journals have you
> >> published in?
> >
> > I asked first
>
> <snicker>


How old are you and which journals have you published in?

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

Will Brink
October 3rd 04, 07:07 PM
In article >,
Carl Nisarel > wrote:

> But heard, half-heard in the silliness, Will Brink writes;
>
> > So asking for your age and journals you published in is not
> > a reasonable request and is = dancing?
>
> No,

Exactly, so answer the question.

> it's a moronic attempt by you to change the subject.
>
> My credentials are irrelevant to the points in this thread.

Then it's an easy question to answer, and just what is the points of
this thread as you see them?

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

Will Brink
October 3rd 04, 07:07 PM
In article >,
Carl Nisarel > wrote:

> > It is?
>
> Yes, it is, Willy.
>
> Keep dancing.

How old are you and which journals have you published in?

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

David
October 3rd 04, 07:08 PM
"Will Brink" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Carl Nisarel > wrote:
>
> > But heard, half-heard in the silliness, Will Brink writes;
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > There is no post I claim Marvin Wolfgang's comments were
> > > peer reviewed,
> >
> > You're as dumb as a brick, Willy and, as usual, you're creating
> > a strawman.
>
>
> How old are you and which journals have you published in? Is that a
> strawman?
>
> --
> Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/
>
You can't imagine how stupid that repetitive question makes you look, Willy

Will Brink
October 3rd 04, 07:11 PM
In article >,
John Hanson > wrote:

> On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 13:05:58 -0400, Will Brink
> > wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>
> >In article >,
> > John Hanson > wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 10:25:51 -0400, Will Brink
> >> > wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
> >>
> >> >In article >,
> >> > John Hanson > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> I looked at it today. I may do something with it tomorrow though but
> >> >> no beer drinking as I'm on call.
> >> >
> >> >On call for what? BTW, as a "gun head" that you are, have you seen these
> >> >grips for 1911? They are all the rage. They are machined from T-6
> >> >aircraft aluminum. Ordered a pair of tactical version for my 1911. See:
> >> >http://www.ajaxgrips.com/ajax/alumagrips?set=01
> >> >
> >> >
> >> On call for work.
> >
> >
> >I figured that part (duh), but what is it that you do?
>
> I'm an automation and systems tech. I maintain large integrated HVAC,
> fire, card access and camera systems which are all networked and
> controlled by PCs. Plus, I also oversee the installations of some of
> these systems. Tomorrow we are starting an upgrade of a fire alarm
> system and the front end (the front end is the server and software
> that allows operators to control these systems) in one building of a
> complex that I maintain.
>
> Next year we will upgrade the HVAC controls in that building. Right
> now, the controls there are 1970s technology. Very old and somewhat
> stupid but it's damn near bullet proof. We will be putting the fire
> controllers (1 building) and HVAC controllers of 2 other buildings in
> this "complex" of three buildings (those controllers are much newer.
> There are 29 HVAC controllers and 10 fire controllers with about 2000
> points on them.) on this new front end also. The rub is that all of
> these systems must be up at the end of the day. If not, I don't go
> home.

Don't do any work with security systems?

>
> >
> >> I'm on call every nine weeks from Wednesday to
> >> Wednesday. I haven't even gotten a call yet. I was hoping for one
> >> today as it's double time and a 4 hour minimum.
> >>
> >> Those grips look cool but I wonder what they'd be like at -20 degrees.
> >> It would be interesting to find out.
> >
> >At www.1911forum.com (you did know there was such a place right?!)
> >several people asked that question, and all said they warm up so fast it
> >was not a problem. Besides, my thought was the gun is under clothes and
> >will be much closer to your body temp then external, and if you pulled
> >it to use it, the last of your problems is a cold gun grip...see link if
> >interested:
> >
> >http://www.1911forum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=38839
> >>
> I figured it would heat up in a hurry.

That's what they seem to say yes.

> I was just thinking about
> bringing it to the range in the winter, not so much carrying it.

Thats a point I guess, but below X temp I am not on the outdoor range
and or our outdoor closes when it gets cold enough.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

Will Brink
October 3rd 04, 07:43 PM
In article >,
Carl Nisarel > wrote:

> But heard, half-heard in the silliness, Will Brink writes;
>
> > Carl Nisarel > wrote:
> >
> >> > It is?
> >>
> >> Yes, it is, Willy.
> >>
> >> Keep dancing.
> >
> > How old are you and which journals have you published in?
>
> You're doing such a good job of following my instructions,
> Willy.

Rigggggggggggggghhhhhhhht. How old are you and which journals have you
published in?

>
> Keep on dancing.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

Will Brink
October 3rd 04, 07:44 PM
In article >,
Carl Nisarel > wrote:

> But heard, half-heard in the silliness, Will Brink writes;
>
> > Carl Nisarel > wrote:
> >
> >> But heard, half-heard in the silliness, Will Brink writes;
> >>
> >> > So asking for your age and journals you published in is
> >> > not a reasonable request and is = dancing?
> >>
> >> No, it's a moronic attempt by you to change the subject.
> >
> > Exactly
>
> So quit doing it, Willy.

He snips, he avoids, he runs. How old are you and which journals have
you published in?


>
>
> ....

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

Will Brink
October 3rd 04, 07:46 PM
In article >,
Carl Nisarel > wrote:

> But heard, half-heard in the silliness, Will Brink writes;
>
> > Carl Nisarel > wrote:
> >
> >> But heard, half-heard in the silliness, Will Brink writes;
> >>
> >> > Carl Nisarel > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> But heard, half-heard in the silliness, Will Brink
> >> >> writes;
> >> >>
> >> >> > And your posts here proves EVERYTHING I said.
> >> >>
> >> >> Yes, it does. You dance.
> >> >>
> >> >> I provided the quote you wrote. You danced.
> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Marvin Wolfgang, the late Director of the Sellin
> >> >> >> >> Center for Studies in Criminology and Criminal
> >> >> >> >> Law at the University of Pennsylvania, considered
> >> >> >> >> by many to be the foremost criminologist in the
> >> >> >> >> country, wrote in that same issue, ...
> >> >> >> >> ...
> >> >> >> >> So this data has been peer-reviewed by a top
> >> >> >> >> (anti gun!) criminologist in this country
> >> >>
> >> >> Go ahead and try to pretend that your reference of "a
> >> >> top (anti gun!) criminologist" was not referring to
> >> >> Marvin Wolfgang.
> >> >
> >> > Of course it was.
> >>
> >> Thus you incorrectly claimed that Wolfgang peer-reviewed
> >> Kleck's article.
> >
> > I claimed no such thing nor did I need to.
>
> "So this data has been peer-reviewed by a top (antigun!)
> criminologist in this country"

Exactly what was written. I can only assume you either (1) can't
understand simple English or (2) you know exactly what you are doing in
an attempt to avoid dealing with the facts. I assume the latter.

>
> It's good you can follow my directions so well, Willy.

How old are you and which journals have you published in?

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

Will Brink
October 3rd 04, 07:47 PM
In article >,
"David" > wrote:

> >
> > --
> > Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/
> >
> You can't imagine how stupid that repetitive question makes you look, Willy

Yet I can't get an answer to those simple questions from a person who
has mentioned his research status and calls me a geezer... Shocking.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

Will Brink
October 3rd 04, 07:49 PM
In article >,
Carl Nisarel > wrote:

> But heard, half-heard in the silliness, Will Brink writes;
>
> > Carl Nisarel > wrote:
> >
> >> But heard, half-heard in the silliness, Will Brink writes;
> >> ...
> >>
> >> > There is no post I claim Marvin Wolfgang's comments were
> >> > peer reviewed,
> >>
> >> You're as dumb as a brick, Willy and, as usual, you're
> >> creating a strawman.
> >
> >
> > How
>
> can you post with minimal brains?
>
> You're a one-trick pony, Willy.
>
> When you get cornered, you just start spouting the same
> irrelevant statments.
>
> Why did you think that Wolfgang's comments were a peer-review
> of Kleck's work?

No stupid, you only think they were, due to your poor reading skills.
Interesting how you snipped out the info I posted from Kleck in his own
words to use the space to insult me. Thus, you can't refute it, so you
snip, avoid, and run.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

John Hanson
October 3rd 04, 07:50 PM
On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 14:11:41 -0400, Will Brink
> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

>In article >,
> John Hanson > wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 13:05:58 -0400, Will Brink
>> > wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>>
>> >In article >,
>> > John Hanson > wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 10:25:51 -0400, Will Brink
>> >> > wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>> >>
>> >> >In article >,
>> >> > John Hanson > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> I looked at it today. I may do something with it tomorrow though but
>> >> >> no beer drinking as I'm on call.
>> >> >
>> >> >On call for what? BTW, as a "gun head" that you are, have you seen these
>> >> >grips for 1911? They are all the rage. They are machined from T-6
>> >> >aircraft aluminum. Ordered a pair of tactical version for my 1911. See:
>> >> >http://www.ajaxgrips.com/ajax/alumagrips?set=01
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> On call for work.
>> >
>> >
>> >I figured that part (duh), but what is it that you do?
>>
>> I'm an automation and systems tech. I maintain large integrated HVAC,
>> fire, card access and camera systems which are all networked and
>> controlled by PCs. Plus, I also oversee the installations of some of
>> these systems. Tomorrow we are starting an upgrade of a fire alarm
>> system and the front end (the front end is the server and software
>> that allows operators to control these systems) in one building of a
>> complex that I maintain.
>>
>> Next year we will upgrade the HVAC controls in that building. Right
>> now, the controls there are 1970s technology. Very old and somewhat
>> stupid but it's damn near bullet proof. We will be putting the fire
>> controllers (1 building) and HVAC controllers of 2 other buildings in
>> this "complex" of three buildings (those controllers are much newer.
>> There are 29 HVAC controllers and 10 fire controllers with about 2000
>> points on them.) on this new front end also. The rub is that all of
>> these systems must be up at the end of the day. If not, I don't go
>> home.
>
>Don't do any work with security systems?
>
Depends on what you mean by security systems. If you are talking
burglar alarm systems, not anymore unless I'm doing a side job. I did
that sort of work for 17 years before my present occupation. I worked
in the homes (this is what I specialized in) and business of some of
the richest and important people in the Upper Midwest. Some of the
residential jobs were over $40,000. Now I like to say I don't work:-)

The only thing I miss about that occupation is the people I met (and
the interesting houses they owned). I spent 7 weeks in one house and
the norm was 2 weeks. You get to know people really well under those
situations. I also got a great admiration for the extremely rich.
They are very decent and hard working for the most part. They don't
whine and try to nickel and dime you. They only want the job done
right and appreciate craftsmanship. They also usually get the hell
out of the house while you are there and go to one of their other
houses in Florida or Hawaii until you are finished.

It's funny that now, I deal with some customers who sometimes think in
their mind that their job is as important as a CEO, but yet they are
so far below him, they'll probably never even speak to one. Yet, I
used to talk golf and politics with him. Usually though, I dealt with
the wife all the time as the husband was rarely home. In those
families, it is the wife who usually runs the households and it is a
full time job as they usually have 1-3 people working for them and
then another 5-10 people or companies who take care of the things
around the place(s). I'd get Christmas and thank you cards with tips
in them a lot. Fond memories.



>>
>> >
>> >> I'm on call every nine weeks from Wednesday to
>> >> Wednesday. I haven't even gotten a call yet. I was hoping for one
>> >> today as it's double time and a 4 hour minimum.
>> >>
>> >> Those grips look cool but I wonder what they'd be like at -20 degrees.
>> >> It would be interesting to find out.
>> >
>> >At www.1911forum.com (you did know there was such a place right?!)
>> >several people asked that question, and all said they warm up so fast it
>> >was not a problem. Besides, my thought was the gun is under clothes and
>> >will be much closer to your body temp then external, and if you pulled
>> >it to use it, the last of your problems is a cold gun grip...see link if
>> >interested:
>> >
>> >http://www.1911forum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=38839
>> >>
>> I figured it would heat up in a hurry.
>
>That's what they seem to say yes.
>
>> I was just thinking about
>> bringing it to the range in the winter, not so much carrying it.
>
>Thats a point I guess, but below X temp I am not on the outdoor range
>and or our outdoor closes when it gets cold enough.

I rarely venture there myself but one ought to do it at least once to
see how their firearm reacts in those situations.

John HUDSON
October 4th 04, 12:29 AM
On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 18:08:27 GMT, "David" >
wrote:

>
>"Will Brink" > wrote in message
...
>> In article >,
>> Carl Nisarel > wrote:
>>
>> > But heard, half-heard in the silliness, Will Brink writes;
>> >
>> > ...
>> >
>> > > There is no post I claim Marvin Wolfgang's comments were
>> > > peer reviewed,
>> >
>> > You're as dumb as a brick, Willy and, as usual, you're creating
>> > a strawman.
>>
>>
>> How old are you and which journals have you published in? Is that a
>> strawman?
>>
>> --
>> Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/
>>
>You can't imagine how stupid that repetitive question makes you look, Willy
>

I just don't know why the rest of them keep letting him repeat and
repeat it ad nauseam without proposing the same sort of criticism!! ??

Double standards??

John HUDSON
October 4th 04, 12:33 AM
On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 14:44:14 -0400, Will Brink
> wrote:

>In article >,
> Carl Nisarel > wrote:
>
>> But heard, half-heard in the silliness, Will Brink writes;
>>
>> > Carl Nisarel > wrote:
>> >
>> >> But heard, half-heard in the silliness, Will Brink writes;
>> >>
>> >> > So asking for your age and journals you published in is
>> >> > not a reasonable request and is = dancing?
>> >>
>> >> No, it's a moronic attempt by you to change the subject.
>> >
>> > Exactly
>>
>> So quit doing it, Willy.
>
>He snips, he avoids, he runs. How old are you and which journals have
>you published in?

Why not ask him how old he is and which journals he publishes in
Willy?

Dopey little prick!!

John Hanson
October 4th 04, 03:26 AM
On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 11:08:42 +0100, John HUDSON >
wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

>On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 19:50:23 -0500, John Hanson
> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 23:48:15 +0100, John HUDSON >
>>wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>>
>>>On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 14:56:16 -0500, John Hanson
> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 17:04:22 +0100, John HUDSON >
>>>>wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 22:05:40 -0500, John Hanson
> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 09:08:40 +0100, John HUDSON >
>>>>>>wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You hide your light under a bushel David.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You have been doing a great job resisting the hyenas in my absence!! I
>>>>>>>see Tiger, Carl and Bob have become the new targets and they are doing
>>>>>>>a sterling job by way of retaliation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>Tiger, Carl and Bob would like nothing better than to see your head
>>>>>>carved off by islamofascists.
>>>>>
>>>>>I would take great exception to that JH but I must take as I find and
>>>>>not one move has been made by this redoubtable trio to separate my
>>>>>head from my heart.
>>>>
>>>>I didn't say they were going to. Only that they'd love to see you
>>>>blindfolded and bound in front of some ****ing Arabs.
>>>
>>>Me personally or all of us ****ing infidels? ;o)
>>>
>>Any WASP type person...even there fellow countrymen if they think it
>>will look bad for the US.
>>>>>
>>>>>My observation is really more to do with the irony of those that
>>>>>"troll" the most in this group, brazenly labelling others as
>>>>>"trolls"!!
>>>>>
>>>>>Have a great weekend John - I am!! ;o)
>>>>
>>>>I'm going to certainly try!
>>>
>>>How's the decking coming on, or are you spinning it out so that you
>>>have an excuse to drink more beer? ;o)
>>>
>>I looked at it today. I may do something with it tomorrow though but
>>no beer drinking as I'm on call.
>
>Now that's sad JH, I'll have one for you!! ;o)

I got called out. I'm still writing my report so the clock is still
ticking. Oh yeah!

>>
>>>HAGW!!
>>
>>Next weekend will be better.
>
>All to look forward to!! ;o)

You got that right! Back to Chengwatana!

David
October 4th 04, 10:24 AM
"John HUDSON" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 18:08:27 GMT, "David" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Will Brink" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> In article >,
> >> Carl Nisarel > wrote:
> >>
> >> > But heard, half-heard in the silliness, Will Brink writes;
> >> >
> >> > ...
> >> >
> >> > > There is no post I claim Marvin Wolfgang's comments were
> >> > > peer reviewed,
> >> >
> >> > You're as dumb as a brick, Willy and, as usual, you're creating
> >> > a strawman.
> >>
> >>
> >> How old are you and which journals have you published in? Is that a
> >> strawman?
> >>
> >> --
> >> Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/
> >>
> >You can't imagine how stupid that repetitive question makes you look,
Willy
> >
>
> I just don't know why the rest of them keep letting him repeat and
> repeat it ad nauseam without proposing the same sort of criticism!! ??
>
> Double standards??

seemed to be an interesting thread for the most part

John HUDSON
October 4th 04, 01:04 PM
On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 09:24:00 GMT, "David" >
wrote:

>
>"John HUDSON" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 18:08:27 GMT, "David" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Will Brink" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> In article >,
>> >> Carl Nisarel > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > But heard, half-heard in the silliness, Will Brink writes;
>> >> >
>> >> > ...
>> >> >
>> >> > > There is no post I claim Marvin Wolfgang's comments were
>> >> > > peer reviewed,
>> >> >
>> >> > You're as dumb as a brick, Willy and, as usual, you're creating
>> >> > a strawman.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> How old are you and which journals have you published in? Is that a
>> >> strawman?
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/
>> >>
>> >You can't imagine how stupid that repetitive question makes you look,
>Willy
>> >
>>
>> I just don't know why the rest of them keep letting him repeat and
>> repeat it ad nauseam without proposing the same sort of criticism!! ??
>>
>> Double standards??
>
>seemed to be an interesting thread for the most part

But as usual, as soon as Willy's academic qualifications are raised,
off he goes on a 'red herring' chase. Anything to cloud and evade the
issue.

Ugh! It's Monday!! ;o(

Larry Hodges
October 4th 04, 03:04 PM
John HUDSON wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 09:24:00 GMT, "David" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>> "John HUDSON" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 18:08:27 GMT, "David" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Will Brink" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> In article >,
>>>>> Carl Nisarel > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> But heard, half-heard in the silliness, Will Brink writes;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is no post I claim Marvin Wolfgang's comments were
>>>>>>> peer reviewed,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're as dumb as a brick, Willy and, as usual, you're creating
>>>>>> a strawman.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> How old are you and which journals have you published in? Is
>>>>> that a strawman?
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/
>>>>>
>>>> You can't imagine how stupid that repetitive question makes you
>>>> look, Willy
>>>>
>>>
>>> I just don't know why the rest of them keep letting him repeat and
>>> repeat it ad nauseam without proposing the same sort of criticism!!
>>> ??
>>>
>>> Double standards??
>>
>> seemed to be an interesting thread for the most part
>
> But as usual, as soon as Willy's academic qualifications are raised,
> off he goes on a 'red herring' chase. Anything to cloud and evade the
> issue.
>
> Ugh! It's Monday!! ;o(

Good morning John. By the time you read this, it will most likely be
evening. How was your holiday and where did you go?
--
-Larry

John HUDSON
October 4th 04, 04:13 PM
On Mon, 4 Oct 2004 07:04:57 -0700, "Larry Hodges"
> wrote:

>John HUDSON wrote:
>> On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 09:24:00 GMT, "David" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "John HUDSON" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 18:08:27 GMT, "David" >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Will Brink" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> In article >,
>>>>>> Carl Nisarel > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But heard, half-heard in the silliness, Will Brink writes;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is no post I claim Marvin Wolfgang's comments were
>>>>>>>> peer reviewed,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You're as dumb as a brick, Willy and, as usual, you're creating
>>>>>>> a strawman.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How old are you and which journals have you published in? Is
>>>>>> that a strawman?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/
>>>>>>
>>>>> You can't imagine how stupid that repetitive question makes you
>>>>> look, Willy
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I just don't know why the rest of them keep letting him repeat and
>>>> repeat it ad nauseam without proposing the same sort of criticism!!
>>>> ??
>>>>
>>>> Double standards??
>>>
>>> seemed to be an interesting thread for the most part
>>
>> But as usual, as soon as Willy's academic qualifications are raised,
>> off he goes on a 'red herring' chase. Anything to cloud and evade the
>> issue.
>>
>> Ugh! It's Monday!! ;o(
>
>Good morning John. By the time you read this, it will most likely be
>evening. How was your holiday and where did you go?

Greetings Larry; it is in fact now 1600 in Olde London Towne, on a
surprisingly sunny Monday afternoon.

The holiday was fabulous; a group of us took a large catered villa (no
cooking or cleaning etc) in Northern Italy, not too far from Lake
Garda but nicely secluded. We were determined to have an active time
to offset the evening festivities and had much wind-surfing, tennis,
mountain-biking, swimming etc.

The nightlife was a gourmet's paradise and despite keeping active I
still put on over half a stone!! ;o(

I trust all is well with you?

It's back to the grindstone today!!

Ugh! It's Monday!! ;o(

David
October 4th 04, 06:17 PM
"John HUDSON" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 4 Oct 2004 07:04:57 -0700, "Larry Hodges"
> > wrote:
>
> >John HUDSON wrote:
> >> On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 09:24:00 GMT, "David" >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> "John HUDSON" > wrote in message
> >>> ...
> >>>> On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 18:08:27 GMT, "David" >
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "Will Brink" > wrote in message
> >>>>> ...
> >>>>>> In article >,
> >>>>>> Carl Nisarel > wrote:

[.....]
> >Good morning John. By the time you read this, it will most likely be
> >evening. How was your holiday and where did you go?
>
> Greetings Larry; it is in fact now 1600 in Olde London Towne, on a
> surprisingly sunny Monday afternoon.
>
> The holiday was fabulous; a group of us took a large catered villa (no
> cooking or cleaning etc) in Northern Italy, not too far from Lake
> Garda but nicely secluded. We were determined to have an active time
> to offset the evening festivities and had much wind-surfing, tennis,
> mountain-biking, swimming etc.
>
> The nightlife was a gourmet's paradise and despite keeping active I
> still put on over half a stone!! ;o(
>
> I trust all is well with you?
>
> It's back to the grindstone today!!
>
> Ugh! It's Monday!! ;o(

so, what did you do for a good time?

John HUDSON
October 4th 04, 08:29 PM
On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 17:17:23 GMT, "David" >
wrote:

>
>"John HUDSON" > wrote in message
...
>> On Mon, 4 Oct 2004 07:04:57 -0700, "Larry Hodges"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >John HUDSON wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 09:24:00 GMT, "David" >
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>> "John HUDSON" > wrote in message
>> >>> ...
>> >>>> On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 18:08:27 GMT, "David" >
>> >>>> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> "Will Brink" > wrote in message
>> >>>>> ...
>> >>>>>> In article >,
>> >>>>>> Carl Nisarel > wrote:
>
>[.....]
>> >Good morning John. By the time you read this, it will most likely be
>> >evening. How was your holiday and where did you go?
>>
>> Greetings Larry; it is in fact now 1600 in Olde London Towne, on a
>> surprisingly sunny Monday afternoon.
>>
>> The holiday was fabulous; a group of us took a large catered villa (no
>> cooking or cleaning etc) in Northern Italy, not too far from Lake
>> Garda but nicely secluded. We were determined to have an active time
>> to offset the evening festivities and had much wind-surfing, tennis,
>> mountain-biking, swimming etc.
>>
>> The nightlife was a gourmet's paradise and despite keeping active I
>> still put on over half a stone!! ;o(
>>
>> I trust all is well with you?
>>
>> It's back to the grindstone today!!
>>
>> Ugh! It's Monday!! ;o(
>
>so, what did you do for a good time?

Well apart from the above most of the time was simply frittered away
aimlessly!! ;o)

David
October 4th 04, 10:53 PM
"John HUDSON" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 17:17:23 GMT, "David" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"John HUDSON" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Mon, 4 Oct 2004 07:04:57 -0700, "Larry Hodges"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >John HUDSON wrote:
> >> >> On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 09:24:00 GMT, "David" >
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> "John HUDSON" > wrote in message
> >> >>> ...
> >> >>>> On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 18:08:27 GMT, "David" >
> >> >>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> "Will Brink" > wrote in message
> >> >>>>> ...
> >> >>>>>> In article >,
> >> >>>>>> Carl Nisarel > wrote:
> >
> >[.....]
> >> >Good morning John. By the time you read this, it will most likely be
> >> >evening. How was your holiday and where did you go?
> >>
> >> Greetings Larry; it is in fact now 1600 in Olde London Towne, on a
> >> surprisingly sunny Monday afternoon.
> >>
> >> The holiday was fabulous; a group of us took a large catered villa (no
> >> cooking or cleaning etc) in Northern Italy, not too far from Lake
> >> Garda but nicely secluded. We were determined to have an active time
> >> to offset the evening festivities and had much wind-surfing, tennis,
> >> mountain-biking, swimming etc.
> >>
> >> The nightlife was a gourmet's paradise and despite keeping active I
> >> still put on over half a stone!! ;o(
> >>
> >> I trust all is well with you?
> >>
> >> It's back to the grindstone today!!
> >>
> >> Ugh! It's Monday!! ;o(
> >
> >so, what did you do for a good time?
>
> Well apart from the above most of the time was simply frittered away
> aimlessly!! ;o)
>
I was joking - sounds like you had a wonderful holiday!

John HUDSON
October 4th 04, 11:41 PM
On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 21:53:50 GMT, "David" >
wrote:

>
>"John HUDSON" > wrote in message
...
>> On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 17:17:23 GMT, "David" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"John HUDSON" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> On Mon, 4 Oct 2004 07:04:57 -0700, "Larry Hodges"
>> >> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >John HUDSON wrote:
>> >> >> On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 09:24:00 GMT, "David" >
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> "John HUDSON" > wrote in message
>> >> >>> ...
>> >> >>>> On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 18:08:27 GMT, "David" >
>> >> >>>> wrote:
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> "Will Brink" > wrote in message
>> >> >>>>> ...
>> >> >>>>>> In article >,
>> >> >>>>>> Carl Nisarel > wrote:
>> >
>> >[.....]
>> >> >Good morning John. By the time you read this, it will most likely be
>> >> >evening. How was your holiday and where did you go?
>> >>
>> >> Greetings Larry; it is in fact now 1600 in Olde London Towne, on a
>> >> surprisingly sunny Monday afternoon.
>> >>
>> >> The holiday was fabulous; a group of us took a large catered villa (no
>> >> cooking or cleaning etc) in Northern Italy, not too far from Lake
>> >> Garda but nicely secluded. We were determined to have an active time
>> >> to offset the evening festivities and had much wind-surfing, tennis,
>> >> mountain-biking, swimming etc.
>> >>
>> >> The nightlife was a gourmet's paradise and despite keeping active I
>> >> still put on over half a stone!! ;o(
>> >>
>> >> I trust all is well with you?
>> >>
>> >> It's back to the grindstone today!!
>> >>
>> >> Ugh! It's Monday!! ;o(
>> >
>> >so, what did you do for a good time?
>>
>> Well apart from the above most of the time was simply frittered away
>> aimlessly!! ;o)
>>
>I was joking - sounds like you had a wonderful holiday!

So was I, I can assure you that no time was "frittered away" and it
all simply flashed by!! It sure pays to go with real friends who are
all up for a good time.

I had the greatest of times and have a lot of happy memories!

David
October 5th 04, 12:16 AM
"John HUDSON" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 21:53:50 GMT, "David" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"John HUDSON" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 17:17:23 GMT, "David" >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"John HUDSON" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >> On Mon, 4 Oct 2004 07:04:57 -0700, "Larry Hodges"
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >John HUDSON wrote:
> >> >> >> On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 09:24:00 GMT, "David"
>
> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> "John HUDSON" > wrote in message
> >> >> >>> ...
> >> >> >>>> On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 18:08:27 GMT, "David"
>
> >> >> >>>> wrote:
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >>>>> "Will Brink" > wrote in message
> >> >> >>>>>
...
> >> >> >>>>>> In article >,
> >> >> >>>>>> Carl Nisarel > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >[.....]
> >> >> >Good morning John. By the time you read this, it will most likely
be
> >> >> >evening. How was your holiday and where did you go?
> >> >>
> >> >> Greetings Larry; it is in fact now 1600 in Olde London Towne, on a
> >> >> surprisingly sunny Monday afternoon.
> >> >>
> >> >> The holiday was fabulous; a group of us took a large catered villa
(no
> >> >> cooking or cleaning etc) in Northern Italy, not too far from Lake
> >> >> Garda but nicely secluded. We were determined to have an active time
> >> >> to offset the evening festivities and had much wind-surfing, tennis,
> >> >> mountain-biking, swimming etc.
> >> >>
> >> >> The nightlife was a gourmet's paradise and despite keeping active I
> >> >> still put on over half a stone!! ;o(
> >> >>
> >> >> I trust all is well with you?
> >> >>
> >> >> It's back to the grindstone today!!
> >> >>
> >> >> Ugh! It's Monday!! ;o(
> >> >
> >> >so, what did you do for a good time?
> >>
> >> Well apart from the above most of the time was simply frittered away
> >> aimlessly!! ;o)
> >>
> >I was joking - sounds like you had a wonderful holiday!
>
> So was I, I can assure you that no time was "frittered away" and it
> all simply flashed by!! It sure pays to go with real friends who are
> all up for a good time.
>
> I had the greatest of times and have a lot of happy memories!

Of course you were joking! I was half asleep when I read your post!