I thought there were only nice people to the north

On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 12:13:18 -0800, "Scott"
<pugetsounddiver@gmail.com> wrote:

>"JOF" <jofrancis@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1h33m35q3bgj3gcc95krrj5nihucup74j3@4ax.com.. .
>
>> There you go then. Start gathering up quotes. Get Popeye to help. He's
>> the alpha quotekeeper around here.
>
>No one needs any help making you look like a fool/liar/bullshit artist, you
>do all the work.
>
>But it is good to see that when he runs your own words/bigotry/idiocy up
>your ass with a candle on it, that it hurts.
>
>Too bad you turned into such a dickhead over this issue, but at the same
>time it is good to know who the jealous socialists are.

Hey. I'm the same dickhead I was before.

JF

On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 13:48:04 -0600, "Dennis \(Icarus\)"
<nojunkmail@ever.invalid> wrote:

>"JOF" <jofrancis@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:llf2m3d61aic5o4sqjuclm6mn18lrkug37@4ax.com.. .
>> On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 22:26:50 -0600, dazed and confuzzed
>> <dedmann@comcast_remove.net> wrote:
>>
>> >JOF wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 22:25:02 -0600, dazed and confuzzed
>> >> <dedmann@comcast_remove.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>Because JOF advocates disarming everyone, Us citizens included?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Your lack of comprehension is world class. Where and when have I ever
>> >> advocated disarming everyone. I gotta see a cite on that. Produce it
>> >> or admit you just lied for effect.
>> >>
>> >> JF
>> >
>> >Look up your own posts. You advocate confiscation of weapons with
>> >automatic loading mechanisms, "high rates of fire", That are "too
>> >powerful" "scary looking" and confiscation from those who you feel don't
>> >need them.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >What else could I believe?
>> >
>> >If I am wrong, feel free to correct my interpretation of your ramblings
>> >over the years. Make a statement as to what you really mean and believe.
>> >
>> >Else I will have to continue to infer your beliefs from your statements.
>>
>> How many times do I have to say this and have it ignored?
>>
>> I absolutely do believe that certain kinds of weapons have no place in
>> any kind of civilized society other than as weapons of war and perhaps
>> law enforcement.
>
>And this is where you get into trouble, John.
>When asked for clarification on what kinds of weapons, turns out it applied
>to all semi-automatics and most revolvers.

Not really. I admit to making the same mistake many folks do in
referring to semi-automatic handguns as automatics, but when I
suggested that some guns with very fast cycling rates shouldn't be
allowed outside of military and perhaps law enforcement situations I
meant automatics. You can blow all the smoke you want up that
particular ass but it won't change anything. Turns out I was right
too, as y'all pointed out to me about the restricted weapons
exceptions to the second amendment that are in place.

>> I absolutely believe that certain kinds of people should be restricted
>> from possessing guns of any kind to any reasonably enforceable extent.
>
>And which kinds of people? Here too, there were problems with your
>definitions.

You guys kindly identify them as we go along as proof that there is
some intelligent design behind yer gun lust. They've been pretty well
covered so you already know them.

>> I have absolutely never said that guns generally should be banned
>> and/or confiscated.
>>
>> Your lawmakers seem to agree with me.
>>
>> This is not to say that several pro-gun folks here haven't [ersisted
>> in attributing these things to me, but that's all you'll find no
>> matter how diligently you search the archives - lies and
>> misrepresentations by the favoured few. It's the classic situation of
>> something being said often enough that it finally starts to ressemble
>> the truth. In short, some of you have lied so many times about this
>> that you're tricked yerselves into believing the lie.
>>
>> How much clearer can I say that?

No glib little retort to that last bit?

JF

JOF wrote:

> On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 07:17:37 -0800, "Scott"
> <pugetsounddiver@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>"JOF" <jofrancis@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:llf2m3d61aic5o4sqjuclm6mn18lrkug37@4ax.com. ..
>>
>>
>>>How much clearer can I say that?
>>
>>Doesn't matter.
>
>
> Exactly my point.
>
> JF
>

very nice snip

"JOF" <jofrancis@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7863m39kjujqk52bhr3pfei91cpgdrhc52@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 13:45:43 -0600, "Dennis \(Icarus\)"
> <nojunkmail@ever.invalid> wrote:
>
> >"JOF" <jofrancis@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:uhf2m39obilcnth44278caiuucv1ihkt74@4ax.com.. .
> >> On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 20:39:27 -0600, "Dennis \(Icarus\)"
> >> <nojunkmail@ever.invalid> wrote:
> >>
> >> >"JOF" <jofrancis@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:eku0m3htmshfs3refuigvqjvuact0qpclk@4ax.com.. .
> >> >> On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 22:25:02 -0600, dazed and confuzzed
> >> >> <dedmann@comcast_remove.net> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >Because JOF advocates disarming everyone, Us citizens included?
> >> >>
> >> >> Your lack of comprehension is world class. Where and when have I
ever
> >> >> advocated disarming everyone. I gotta see a cite on that. Produce it
> >> >> or admit you just lied for effect.
> >> >
> >> >Before you start demanding references from folks, don;t you think it'd
be
> >a
> >> >good idea if you provided the ones you've been asked for, but ignored?
> >>
> >> Your evasion speaks volumes. Did you lie deliberately or was it
> >> innocent misrepresentation?
> >
> >It's not misrepresentation. I've asked you for cites when you've accused
me
> >of something - saying something, misunderstanding, etc, and you've not
done
> >so.
> >Don't ask from other that which you're unwilling to provide.
>
> Wow. You're getting really really good at this obfuscation stuff.

All I'm doing is speaking the truth.
Think back to how you picked up the nickname "futile" from Popeye.

Dennis

JOF wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 22:26:50 -0600, dazed and confuzzed
> <dedmann@comcast_remove.net> wrote:
>
>
>>JOF wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 22:25:02 -0600, dazed and confuzzed
>>><dedmann@comcast_remove.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Because JOF advocates disarming everyone, Us citizens included?
>>>
>>>
>>>Your lack of comprehension is world class. Where and when have I ever
>>>advocated disarming everyone. I gotta see a cite on that. Produce it
>>>or admit you just lied for effect.
>>>
>>>JF
>>
>>Look up your own posts. You advocate confiscation of weapons with
>>automatic loading mechanisms, "high rates of fire", That are "too
>>powerful" "scary looking" and confiscation from those who you feel don't
>>need them.
>>
>>
>>
>>What else could I believe?
>>
>>If I am wrong, feel free to correct my interpretation of your ramblings
>>over the years. Make a statement as to what you really mean and believe.
>>
>>Else I will have to continue to infer your beliefs from your statements.
>
>
> How many times do I have to say this and have it ignored?

As long as you later make statements that refute it.
>
> I absolutely do believe that certain kinds of weapons have no place in
> any kind of civilized society other than as weapons of war and perhaps
> law enforcement.

Like pistols that carry more than your current (and it seems to change)
feeling regarding the needed number of rounds.

Like pistols with "too high a rate of fire"

Pistols with what is commonly called 'automatic action"



>
> I absolutely believe that certain kinds of people should be restricted
> from possessing guns of any kind to any reasonably enforceable extent.

Yet you never can make a statement that is clear regarding exactly *WHO*
those "kinds of people" are. Then you paint all gun owners as savage
psychopaths.
>
> I have absolutely never said that guns generally should be banned
> and/or confiscated.

Perhaps not. But you have said that *some* should be, and that *some*
people (specifically those who you feel are dangerous, and have included
gun owners in that group) shouldn't have the right to carry.
>
> Your lawmakers seem to agree with me.

Fewer and fewer each year.
>
> This is not to say that several pro-gun folks here haven't [ersisted
> in attributing these things to me, but that's all you'll find no
> matter how diligently you search the archives - lies and
> misrepresentations by the favoured few. It's the classic situation of
> something being said often enough that it finally starts to ressemble
> the truth. In short, some of you have lied so many times about this
> that you're tricked yerselves into believing the lie.

When have I lied? I have taken your words and applied them.
>
> How much clearer can I say that?

You can't. But you aren't consistent either. Chances are, you'll
contradict these words in less than 30 days, unless you stop posting...
>
> JF
>


--
“TANSTAAFL”
__________________________________________________ __________________________

America: Ironically, the safest place to be anti-American.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
"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:

> On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 12:13:18 -0800, "Scott"
> <pugetsounddiver@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>"JOF" <jofrancis@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:1h33m35q3bgj3gcc95krrj5nihucup74j3@4ax.com. ..
>>
>>
>>>There you go then. Start gathering up quotes. Get Popeye to help. He's
>>>the alpha quotekeeper around here.
>>
>>No one needs any help making you look like a fool/liar/bullshit artist, you
>>do all the work.
>>
>>But it is good to see that when he runs your own words/bigotry/idiocy up
>>your ass with a candle on it, that it hurts.
>>
>>Too bad you turned into such a dickhead over this issue, but at the same
>>time it is good to know who the jealous socialists are.
>
>
> Hey. I'm the same dickhead I was before.
>
> JF
>

The sad part is that that is not true. You are a *LARGER* dickhead than
you once were.

--
“TANSTAAFL”
__________________________________________________ __________________________

America: Ironically, the safest place to be anti-American.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
"A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them;
the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3

On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 17:04:19 -0600, "Dennis \(Icarus\)"
<nojunkmail@ever.invalid> wrote:


>> Wow. You're getting really really good at this obfuscation stuff.
>
>All I'm doing is speaking the truth.
>Think back to how you picked up the nickname "futile" from Popeye.

And squirming around the rest of the truth in the process. Truth
that's used to avoid less comfortable truth is tantamount to a lie.

JF

On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 17:29:01 -0600, dazed and confuzzed
<dedmann@comcast_remove.net> wrote:

>JOF wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 12:13:18 -0800, "Scott"
>> <pugetsounddiver@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"JOF" <jofrancis@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:1h33m35q3bgj3gcc95krrj5nihucup74j3@4ax.com ...
>>>
>>>
>>>>There you go then. Start gathering up quotes. Get Popeye to help. He's
>>>>the alpha quotekeeper around here.
>>>
>>>No one needs any help making you look like a fool/liar/bullshit artist, you
>>>do all the work.
>>>
>>>But it is good to see that when he runs your own words/bigotry/idiocy up
>>>your ass with a candle on it, that it hurts.
>>>
>>>Too bad you turned into such a dickhead over this issue, but at the same
>>>time it is good to know who the jealous socialists are.
>>
>>
>> Hey. I'm the same dickhead I was before.
>>
>> JF
>>
>
>The sad part is that that is not true. You are a *LARGER* dickhead than
>you once were.


Once we stop growing we start losing ground.

JF

On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 17:23:25 -0600, dazed and confuzzed
<dedmann@comcast_remove.net> wrote:

>JOF wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 22:26:50 -0600, dazed and confuzzed
>> <dedmann@comcast_remove.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>JOF wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 22:25:02 -0600, dazed and confuzzed
>>>><dedmann@comcast_remove.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Because JOF advocates disarming everyone, Us citizens included?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Your lack of comprehension is world class. Where and when have I ever
>>>>advocated disarming everyone. I gotta see a cite on that. Produce it
>>>>or admit you just lied for effect.
>>>>
>>>>JF
>>>
>>>Look up your own posts. You advocate confiscation of weapons with
>>>automatic loading mechanisms, "high rates of fire", That are "too
>>>powerful" "scary looking" and confiscation from those who you feel don't
>>>need them.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>What else could I believe?
>>>
>>>If I am wrong, feel free to correct my interpretation of your ramblings
>>>over the years. Make a statement as to what you really mean and believe.
>>>
>>>Else I will have to continue to infer your beliefs from your statements.
>>
>>
>> How many times do I have to say this and have it ignored?
>
>As long as you later make statements that refute it.

???

>> I absolutely do believe that certain kinds of weapons have no place in
>> any kind of civilized society other than as weapons of war and perhaps
>> law enforcement.
>
>Like pistols that carry more than your current (and it seems to change)
>feeling regarding the needed number of rounds.

Did I ever state a cycling rate limitation? What did I change from
nothing?

>Like pistols with "too high a rate of fire"

Yer point being?

>Pistols with what is commonly called 'automatic action"

Yer point

>> I absolutely believe that certain kinds of people should be restricted
>> from possessing guns of any kind to any reasonably enforceable extent.
>
>Yet you never can make a statement that is clear regarding exactly *WHO*
>those "kinds of people" are. Then you paint all gun owners as savage
>psychopaths.
>>
>> I have absolutely never said that guns generally should be banned
>> and/or confiscated.
>
>Perhaps not. But you have said that *some* should be, and that *some*
>people (specifically those who you feel are dangerous, and have included
>gun owners in that group) shouldn't have the right to carry.

And thats inconsistent how (my keyboard has voluntarily reverted to
french and makes funny things outa question marks & apostrophes. Ill
fix it later.

>> Your lawmakers seem to agree with me.
>
>Fewer and fewer each year.

Is that a yes or a no

>> This is not to say that several pro-gun folks here haven't [ersisted
>> in attributing these things to me, but that's all you'll find no
>> matter how diligently you search the archives - lies and
>> misrepresentations by the favoured few. It's the classic situation of
>> something being said often enough that it finally starts to ressemble
>> the truth. In short, some of you have lied so many times about this
>> that you're tricked yerselves into believing the lie.
>
>When have I lied? I have taken your words and applied them.
>>
>> How much clearer can I say that?
>
>You can't. But you aren't consistent either. Chances are, you'll
>contradict these words in less than 30 days, unless you stop posting...

Be sure to point it out to me.

JF

"JOF" <jofrancis@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:sci3m3pchrhp015ui6t708d1phc368q8gg@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 17:04:19 -0600, "Dennis \(Icarus\)"
> <nojunkmail@ever.invalid> wrote:
>
>
> >> Wow. You're getting really really good at this obfuscation stuff.
> >
> >All I'm doing is speaking the truth.
> >Think back to how you picked up the nickname "futile" from Popeye.
>
> And squirming around the rest of the truth in the process. Truth
> that's used to avoid less comfortable truth is tantamount to a lie.

What "rest of the truth" am Isquirming around? I've just commented opn your
refusal to provid cites backing what you claim others have posted here.
In fact, you said something to the effect that you'd let "others who took
this stuff more seriously" do that.


Dennis