Re: A rational Canadian approach to firearms.

"JOF" <jofrancis@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1169148924.352841.70420@51g2000cwl.googlegrou ps.com...
>
> Scott ha escrito:
>
>> Taken in the context it was born in, it is a great idea. But don't worry,
>> John can/will twist all this into something it was never intended to be
>> or
>> say.
>
> I was just wondering what moved Doug to even post it. When asked (or
> accused) before about forcing guns on anyone everyone took exception to
> the idea. I thought maybe Doug had changed his tune.

You accused, not asked (as you well know), and you were wrong (as always),
and, has my tune changed the last several times you insinuated it?

I didn't think so.

"dazed and confuzzed" <dedmann@comcast_remove.net> wrote in message
news:5vWdnXP4Rca6ZDLYnZ2dnUVZ_tadnZ2d@comcast.com. ..

> So provide me with a URL where I can read it. I'll not pay to find out
> if you are correct.

Why would he be? He hasnt been since he appeared, and apparently hasnt been
since he was hatched.

Wanna make a bet?

I'll wager a quarter (just because it's all he's worth).

> And I'll not work too hard to find a free copy either.

> You want me to read it, give it to me.

> Or shut up with your pathetic bluster.

"He" cant.

Carl's best shot is to call *everyone* a "fuckwit", "coward" (as he hides
his identity and abuses his service provider).

He is despised and reviled by every single person or entity he interacts
with on the www.

Carl alone is right, and every other person on the face of the earth is a
"fuckwit".

Carl, since I know you hang on my every word, go back to sniffing your
mommas panties and leave the mens work to the men.

Douglas W "Popeye" Frederick ha escrito:

> "JOF" <jofrancis@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1169148924.352841.70420@51g2000cwl.googlegrou ps.com...
> >
> > Scott ha escrito:
> >
> >> Taken in the context it was born in, it is a great idea. But don't worry,
> >> John can/will twist all this into something it was never intended to be
> >> or
> >> say.
> >
> > I was just wondering what moved Doug to even post it. When asked (or
> > accused) before about forcing guns on anyone everyone took exception to
> > the idea. I thought maybe Doug had changed his tune.
>
> You accused, not asked (as you well know), and you were wrong (as always),
> and, has my tune changed the last several times you insinuated it?
>
> I didn't think so.

So I'll ask again. What was the point of posting the article? Given
that it essentially says nothing at all except that some sparsely
populated rural community has someone on council who thinks there
should be more guns. If that's the message you were pointing out I
don't get the point.

JF

Hwæt! "Douglas W \"Popeye\" Frederick"
<Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com>, soðe:

> "JOF" <jofrancis@gmail.com> wrote in message
....

>> So are you and Doug in fact saying that a law forcing every
>> household to keep a gun is a good thing?
>
> I don't remember either of us saying it.

JOF: "So how would you vote? Should the law require a gun in every
>household? Yes or no, no waffling."

Scott "The Pussy" Koplin: "As to the vote; Yes."

Douggy's memory stinks.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"JOF" <jofrancis@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1169164147.815555.72820@a75g2000cwd.googlegro ups.com...
>
> Douglas W "Popeye" Frederick ha escrito:
>
>> > So are you and Doug in fact saying that a law forcing every household
>> > to keep a gun is a good thing?
>>
>> I don't remember either of us saying it.
>
> You have a memory problem?

Not yet.

Mine was crystal clear.

Yours is the one constantly cited in error.

"JOF" <jofrancis@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1169165203.590458.310960@q2g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...
>
> Douglas W "Popeye" Frederick ha escrito:
>
>> "JOF" <jofrancis@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1169148924.352841.70420@51g2000cwl.googlegrou ps.com...
>> >
>> > Scott ha escrito:
>> >
>> >> Taken in the context it was born in, it is a great idea. But don't
>> >> worry,
>> >> John can/will twist all this into something it was never intended to
>> >> be
>> >> or
>> >> say.
>> >
>> > I was just wondering what moved Doug to even post it. When asked (or
>> > accused) before about forcing guns on anyone everyone took exception to
>> > the idea. I thought maybe Doug had changed his tune.
>>
>> You accused, not asked (as you well know), and you were wrong (as
>> always),
>> and, has my tune changed the last several times you insinuated it?
>>
>> I didn't think so.
>
> So I'll ask again. What was the point of posting the article? Given
> that it essentially says nothing at all except that some sparsely
> populated rural community has someone on council who thinks there
> should be more guns. If that's the message you were pointing out I
> don't get the point.

You don't get points, John.

Usually by preference.

Carl Nisarel wrote:

> Hwæt! dazed and confuzzed <dedmann@comcast_remove.net>, soðe:
>
>
>>"Unlikely", and "may" are not terribly concrete terms.
>
>
> That's how academics write. Since social science analyses aren't
> capable of producing absolute proof, academics use terms like "may"
>
> You just demonstrated, once again, that you really don't have a clue
> what you're reading.
>
It must be hard to go through life feeling as inadequate as you appear to.

You are a little, small man.



--
“TAANSTAFL”
__________________________________________________ __________________________

"A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them;
The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3
__________________________________________________ __________________________

JOF wrote:

> Douglas W "Popeye" Frederick ha escrito:
>
>
>>"JOF" <jofrancis@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:1169148924.352841.70420@51g2000cwl.googlegr oups.com...
>>
>>>Scott ha escrito:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Taken in the context it was born in, it is a great idea. But don't worry,
>>>>John can/will twist all this into something it was never intended to be
>>>>or
>>>>say.
>>>
>>>I was just wondering what moved Doug to even post it. When asked (or
>>>accused) before about forcing guns on anyone everyone took exception to
>>>the idea. I thought maybe Doug had changed his tune.
>>
>> You accused, not asked (as you well know), and you were wrong (as always),
>>and, has my tune changed the last several times you insinuated it?
>>
>> I didn't think so.
>
>
> So I'll ask again. What was the point of posting the article? Given
> that it essentially says nothing at all except that some sparsely
> populated rural community has someone on council who thinks there
> should be more guns. If that's the message you were pointing out I
> don't get the point.
>
> JF
>
Are you gonna answer my questions?

Posted twice now.



--
“TAANSTAFL”
__________________________________________________ __________________________

"A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them;
The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3
__________________________________________________ __________________________

JOF wrote

>> Keep up the good work, brothers to the north. Don't pay any attention to
>> that part about criminals being more comfortable, and more active, in
>> areas
>> where guns are discouraged and less comfortable and less active pursuing
>> their occupation where gun ownership is supported. Please also ignore
>> the
>> difference in the support for, and the concentration of guns in the US
>> and
>> the relative lack of them in much of Canada. It doesn't mean anything,
>> really, it doesn't.

> So are you and Doug in fact saying that a law forcing every household
> to keep a gun is a good thing?

Did we say that in a post? If not, then we probably didn't mean to say it
since both of us are pretty well known for writing what we intend to say.

Did you read the news article? Did you understand it? What do you think it
was saying?

Lee

Lee Bell ha escrito:

> JOF wrote
>
> >> Keep up the good work, brothers to the north. Don't pay any attention to
> >> that part about criminals being more comfortable, and more active, in
> >> areas
> >> where guns are discouraged and less comfortable and less active pursuing
> >> their occupation where gun ownership is supported. Please also ignore
> >> the
> >> difference in the support for, and the concentration of guns in the US
> >> and
> >> the relative lack of them in much of Canada. It doesn't mean anything,
> >> really, it doesn't.
>
> > So are you and Doug in fact saying that a law forcing every household
> > to keep a gun is a good thing?
>
> Did we say that in a post? If not, then we probably didn't mean to say it
> since both of us are pretty well known for writing what we intend to say.

I was just asking. Doug couldn't remember the answer either.

> Did you read the news article? Did you understand it? What do you think it
> was saying?

Yes and yes and that some folks thought everyone in some little town
should be required to be armed. Apparently it was actually meant to be
more in the form of a recommendation.

JF