Are Hunters psycho's??

On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 14:48:05 GMT, "Tim J."
wrote:


Now you're diluting my message with the "and/or" disclaimer. I distinctly linked
them all together.

To prove what ??

You'd be just as accurate with "sexist white male with a drinking
problem" (and most likely a Republican to boot :-)
My experiences in employment practices are fairly broad, and I've dealt with
many problems from all angles, including that one.

So why not use that one ??

I
don't *think* there was an implication to the contrary in your statement, but,
if so, I would resent it.

I didn't have the foggiest idea of your work environment
and no, that comment wasn't directed at you. I didn't
think that you owned your shop in any case.

I hear you ain't a bad fisherman, tho, as long as you don't
listen to afternoon radio on the way to the parking lot :-)
Greg, I think you know by now I don't let afternoon radio do my thinking for me.
It's interesting, though, each time a conservative point is being made, that
seems to be your cover. What's wrong? Al Franken not making the grade? ;-)

With respect to you and afternoons, that was a weak try at humor
to take some of the edge of the post.

WIth respect to Mr. Franken, I've never heard his show, but I have
heard Mr. Rush.

With respect to Mr. Rush, I have none. He is a self-indulgent
fascist who is making a lot of money convincing lazy people that
they really don't need more than a line or two on any subject to
know and understand all of the answers. And the more negative
these answers are towards their fellow citizens, the more satsified
they are and the more money Mr. Rush makes

And what are these great "conservative" ideas that I have tarred
with Mr. Rush's brush ? I'll give you one that I have picked
on:criticism of this administration's war policy is an attack on our
troops. Is that a "conservative point ?" Have you read any real
conservative publications lately ?

On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 14:48:05 GMT, "Tim J."
wrote:


Now you're diluting my message with the "and/or" disclaimer. I distinctly linked
them all together.

To prove what ??

You'd be just as accurate with "sexist white male with a drinking
problem" (and most likely a Republican to boot :-)
My experiences in employment practices are fairly broad, and I've dealt with
many problems from all angles, including that one.

So why not use that one ??

I
don't *think* there was an implication to the contrary in your statement, but,
if so, I would resent it.

I didn't have the foggiest idea of your work environment
and no, that comment wasn't directed at you. I didn't
think that you owned your shop in any case.

I hear you ain't a bad fisherman, tho, as long as you don't
listen to afternoon radio on the way to the parking lot :-)
Greg, I think you know by now I don't let afternoon radio do my thinking for me.
It's interesting, though, each time a conservative point is being made, that
seems to be your cover. What's wrong? Al Franken not making the grade? ;-)

With respect to you and afternoons, that was a weak try at humor
to take some of the edge of the post.

WIth respect to Mr. Franken, I've never heard his show, but I have
heard Mr. Rush.

With respect to Mr. Rush, I have none. He is a self-indulgent
fascist who is making a lot of money convincing lazy people that
they really don't need more than a line or two on any subject to
know and understand all of the answers. And the more negative
these answers are towards their fellow citizens, the more satsified
they are and the more money Mr. Rush makes

And what are these great "conservative" ideas that I have tarred
with Mr. Rush's brush ? I'll give you one that I have picked
on:criticism of this administration's war policy is an attack on our
troops. Is that a "conservative point ?" Have you read any real
conservative publications lately ?

GregP wrote:
Tim J. wrote:

Now you're diluting my message with the "and/or" disclaimer. I
distinctly linked them all together.

To prove what ??

You'd be just as accurate with "sexist white male with a drinking
problem" (and most likely a Republican to boot :-)
My experiences in employment practices are fairly broad, and I've
dealt with many problems from all angles, including that one.

So why not use that one ??

I
don't *think* there was an implication to the contrary in your
statement, but, if so, I would resent it.

I didn't have the foggiest idea of your work environment
and no, that comment wasn't directed at you. I didn't
think that you owned your shop in any case.

I hear you ain't a bad fisherman, tho, as long as you don't
listen to afternoon radio on the way to the parking lot :-)
Greg, I think you know by now I don't let afternoon radio do my
thinking for me. It's interesting, though, each time a conservative
point is being made, that seems to be your cover. What's wrong? Al
Franken not making the grade? ;-)

With respect to you and afternoons, that was a weak try at humor
to take some of the edge of the post.

WIth respect to Mr. Franken, I've never heard his show, but I have
heard Mr. Rush.

With respect to Mr. Rush, I have none. He is a self-indulgent
fascist who is making a lot of money convincing lazy people that
they really don't need more than a line or two on any subject to
know and understand all of the answers. And the more negative
these answers are towards their fellow citizens, the more satsified
they are and the more money Mr. Rush makes

And what are these great "conservative" ideas that I have tarred
with Mr. Rush's brush ? I'll give you one that I have picked
on:criticism of this administration's war policy is an attack on our
troops. Is that a "conservative point ?" Have you read any real
conservative publications lately ?

Hoo, boy - we're on two different pages and I'm obviously not making myself
clear. You're arguing points I didn't think I was trying to make, and the thread
is now snipped into a form unrecognizable from the original. Before this goes
any further in the wrong direction, EOT for me.
--
TL,
Tim
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

GregP wrote:
Tim J. wrote:

Now you're diluting my message with the "and/or" disclaimer. I
distinctly linked them all together.

To prove what ??

You'd be just as accurate with "sexist white male with a drinking
problem" (and most likely a Republican to boot :-)
My experiences in employment practices are fairly broad, and I've
dealt with many problems from all angles, including that one.

So why not use that one ??

I
don't *think* there was an implication to the contrary in your
statement, but, if so, I would resent it.

I didn't have the foggiest idea of your work environment
and no, that comment wasn't directed at you. I didn't
think that you owned your shop in any case.

I hear you ain't a bad fisherman, tho, as long as you don't
listen to afternoon radio on the way to the parking lot :-)
Greg, I think you know by now I don't let afternoon radio do my
thinking for me. It's interesting, though, each time a conservative
point is being made, that seems to be your cover. What's wrong? Al
Franken not making the grade? ;-)

With respect to you and afternoons, that was a weak try at humor
to take some of the edge of the post.

WIth respect to Mr. Franken, I've never heard his show, but I have
heard Mr. Rush.

With respect to Mr. Rush, I have none. He is a self-indulgent
fascist who is making a lot of money convincing lazy people that
they really don't need more than a line or two on any subject to
know and understand all of the answers. And the more negative
these answers are towards their fellow citizens, the more satsified
they are and the more money Mr. Rush makes

And what are these great "conservative" ideas that I have tarred
with Mr. Rush's brush ? I'll give you one that I have picked
on:criticism of this administration's war policy is an attack on our
troops. Is that a "conservative point ?" Have you read any real
conservative publications lately ?

Hoo, boy - we're on two different pages and I'm obviously not making myself
clear. You're arguing points I didn't think I was trying to make, and the thread
is now snipped into a form unrecognizable from the original. Before this goes
any further in the wrong direction, EOT for me.
--
TL,
Tim
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

Hmmm...can most PSU profs point out where I used the word "they" in the
above sentence?

"....when, in fact, they CAN, as long as they accept the
consequences...."

A) I don't give a damn about what "a great many people" think because
quantity over quality is rarely a good choice, B) No, it wouldn't be any
clearer because it couldn't be any clearer, at least to those who have
read a reasonable amount of the contemporary material and can understand
the general concept of legislative intent, and C - the "well-regulated
militia" portion is important, especially when taken into contemporary
context.

That's your opinion, to which you're entitled, but which is not shared
universally.

vince

On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 19:57:51 -0400, vincent p. norris
wrote:

Hmmm...can most PSU profs point out where I used the word "they" in the
above sentence?

"....when, in fact, they CAN, as long as they accept the
consequences...."

Oh, goody...another cut-n-paste-cum-snip-n-prover... that sentence was
not is the paragraph to which you originally referred as containing the
allegedly confusing "they." But if we are going to digress into that
type of thing, it's OK by me, but don't whine when it gets goofy.

A) I don't give a damn about what "a great many people" think because
quantity over quality is rarely a good choice, B) No, it wouldn't be any
clearer because it couldn't be any clearer, at least to those who have
read a reasonable amount of the contemporary material and can understand
the general concept of legislative intent, and C - the "well-regulated
militia" portion is important, especially when taken into contemporary
context.

That's your opinion, to which you're entitled, but which is not shared
universally.

See "A)," above...

Fixin' to get all Raoul on yer ass.
R

On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 19:57:51 -0400, vincent p. norris
wrote:

Hmmm...can most PSU profs point out where I used the word "they" in the
above sentence?

"....when, in fact, they CAN, as long as they accept the
consequences...."

Oh, goody...another cut-n-paste-cum-snip-n-prover... that sentence was
not is the paragraph to which you originally referred as containing the
allegedly confusing "they." But if we are going to digress into that
type of thing, it's OK by me, but don't whine when it gets goofy.

A) I don't give a damn about what "a great many people" think because
quantity over quality is rarely a good choice, B) No, it wouldn't be any
clearer because it couldn't be any clearer, at least to those who have
read a reasonable amount of the contemporary material and can understand
the general concept of legislative intent, and C - the "well-regulated
militia" portion is important, especially when taken into contemporary
context.

That's your opinion, to which you're entitled, but which is not shared
universally.

See "A)," above...

Fixin' to get all Raoul on yer ass.
R

george wrote: There is no legal access for average citizens to "automatic
assault
weapons",
and there hasn't been, in this country, since 1934.


Sorry, but this is not true. Anyone who is not a convicted felon or drug addict
that chooses to buy a machine gun can do so after filling out the mountain of
paperwork and waiting for the investigations to be done and pays the transfer
fee can own their own machine gun. Most just choose not to bother with the
hassle.

Big Dale

Oh, goody...another cut-n-paste-cum-snip-n-prover... that sentence was
not is the paragraph to which you originally referred as containing the
allegedly confusing "they."

Well, here's the complete paragraph to which I referred, from your
earlier post:

"Can" it? Sure. Just like Congress _can_ pass any law (however crazy
and/or un-Constitutional it might ultimately be declared) it might
wish or when folks say "You _can't_ do that!," when, in fact, they
CAN, as long as they accept the consequences...including such
consequences as having the order/law nullified by being declared
un-Constitutional.

vince

Oh, goody...another cut-n-paste-cum-snip-n-prover... that sentence was
not is the paragraph to which you originally referred as containing the
allegedly confusing "they."

Well, here's the complete paragraph to which I referred, from your
earlier post:

"Can" it? Sure. Just like Congress _can_ pass any law (however crazy
and/or un-Constitutional it might ultimately be declared) it might
wish or when folks say "You _can't_ do that!," when, in fact, they
CAN, as long as they accept the consequences...including such
consequences as having the order/law nullified by being declared
un-Constitutional.

vince