Don Gwinn

ZakariRU, hold on a minute. I'm going to see if someone can translate that last one for me. Can someone help me out here? When Z talks about "he," is he referring to me, a hypothetical example, or one of you? How does he know I'm not a Catholic? I know lots of Catholics and either they have sex with their wives or they're awful liars. Well, probably both. Not a Christian? Because I mentioned sex with my wife? I mean, maybe I was unclear. She is my WIFE. We were MARRIED. By a MINISTER. I have a signed certificate around here somewhere. I was under the impression that Christianity considered marriage binding. Not so? Perhaps I've just been doing it wrong (Christianity, that is.)

Riiiiiiiigght. With what, precisely, do you propose to replace the internal combustion engine? Keep in mind that you can buy an engine to run on propane, kerosene, wood, coal, solar power, or hydrogen fuel cells now. People don't buy them, not because they're not on the market, but because you'd be a fool to pay ten times as much for a hundredth the capability. Where are these batteries that run three times longer than what we have now, and how on Earth is it possible that "money" made them "not evolve?" (Eloquent choice of terms by the way.) "Money" and "greed" would dictate the opposite. If they're so much longer-lasting at an affordable price, then whoever brought them to market could corner the battery market and get filthy dirty stinking rich. What light bulbs last 7 times longer than compact fluorescent? LED's? If they're not on the market, how did you find out they exist? Contentment is nice, but without the drive to improve one's lot and do better, you wouldn't have all the stuff you're so content with. I imagine you probably have indoor plumbing, television, a telephone. . . . maybe an automobile. You seem to have a computer with net access. How big of you to be content with so little while everyone else is greedy. I don't exactly live in a castle, but I'm rather proud of the fact that I don't wear poverty as a badge of honor. Anyone who thinks there is more innate virtue in poverty than wealth needs an adjustment.

Da Bears. Lemme get this straight--your favorite college football team was Stanford, but when your cousin was drafted by a professional baseball team, that changed your favorite college football team?

All true, and don't listen to well-meaning people who tell you to enjoy your teen years because "these are the best years of your life." If high school is the best part of your life, you stopped trying after high school. For most people it only gets better. I should have been one of the "happy" kids in high school. I got good grades, football all-star, track. . . well, I made the team. I had a good family with two loving parents and though we were poor I didn't particularly care and never went hungry. But for a teenager, sometimes it just comes and none of the good things in life make any difference. I even wondered about suicide sometimes, and now only a few years later I can't remember why. Must have been truly earth-shattering stuff, huh? Listen to angry music REALLY loud and smash non-valuable possessions. It worked for me. I suggest old Metallica--before the black album.

Hm. . . I posted this once, but I guess it didn't take. There's been nothing said about demanding children on this thread except for the apparently small lesbian group in Australia who want government to fund their in-vitro. Everyone else under discussion is demanding only that they be allowed to apply to adopt AND be judged by the same standards as straight people who want to adopt. Do I need to explain how ridiculously fair and obvious that is? For the record, which race should be barred from adopting children, in your opinion? Which eye color? Mine are blue and my wife's are brown, so between us I fear our odds are slim. What kind of fool dismisses human rights as "selfishness?" I bet you enjoy free speech, you selfish thing, you. Parenting is also a vocation that requires that you set an example for your child to follow in life. Teaching your child to accept being treated as an untermensch just because some people have to ask a book what they should think about everything would not be doing the kid any favors. Oh, for the love of . . . . you know, some people would think it would be more difficult to provide the best possible environment for the child if you are never allowed to give the child a home in the first place. Do you believe this stuff you've posted? ZakariRu, same question. You lost me on the big curve back there. You do or do not find the fact that I have sex with my own wife in my own bedroom appalling? That would be rather a stupid attitude, wouldn't it?

I have solved this problem in the ancient and proven manner. I got married.

A bandanna would work best, if you're allowed to wear it. Personally, when I was a kid, I just shaved mine while my parents were at work. It is always easier to ask forgiveness than permission. I grew it to my shoulders a few years ago, so I know what you mean, but I shave it again now and it feels so much better all summer.

Grizzly. I'm willing to kick your ass if you insist on pushing the point, but all I really want to do is find some hunny and a good tree to scratch my back on. I am a critter of peace.

Not true. Silent Bob used the Jedi Mind Trick to great advantage. Clearly it can be done, but only by one as focused and empty of thought as Bob. Jay, for instance, would never be capable of such focus nor able to keep his trap shut long enough to pull it off.

BlueDragon speaks the truth. You will not neatly grab his wrist, disarm him and throw him. You WILL be cut. Knives are not actually more dangerous than firearms, although some people, assuming very close range, are more dangerous with a knife than many others would be with a gun. Certainly if an untrained person with a gun lets a trained knife fighter close into his range, they're in trouble. However, many people see knives as capable of more gruesome, bloody or painful wounds than a firearm, and for the most part that's true. Somewhere on knifeforums.com, a young man named Thaddeus posted a description of what it was like to cut someone in a real-life fight--the feeling of the knife going through muscle, striking bone, the thrashing, the blood. It wasn't pretty. In fact, it was enough to make you taste yesterday's lunch. He posted it in response to a kid who kept coming back incessantly asking mincing questions about wound channels and ways to get ever-larger and gorier wounds. Kid needed to understand that he wasn't playing a game. Much depends on the type of knife as well. A decent bowie knife, like Bagwell's Gambler or Hell's Belle models, can take your hand off at the wrist. And the same blow can be reversed in an instant with a back-cut; if the swedge is sharp or the knife is double-edged, any technique that requires you to grab his wrist will get you badly cut and might lose the use of that hand for the rest of the fight. Using a knife on someone is serious business. So is facing one! And I'm sorry, but if you really, honestly believe that two arms, two legs and a knife are inferior to two arms and two legs you aren't really training to stop a knife. When the time comes, you will be cut to ribbons. It will not be like the movies. If you don't bleed out, you will probably still have incredibly painful wounds and permanent loss of some function.

What reason could you possibly have for hating gay people? If you like gay people, they should be able to adopt. If you don't like gay people, too bad. Mind your own business. It's an exhilarating way to live your life. If you have some solid evidence that being adopted by gay people does harm to a child, THEN and ONLY THEN you MIGHT have the right to bar gay people from adopting. Would you bar people who smoke? People who drink? People who would like to take the kid fishing or teach him to play basketball (that's dangerous stuff--kids get killed and hurt doing that stuff!)

Yo, Zak. . . .how about if you come up with the more humane system FIRST; then we'll talk about killing capitalism. Your way is a little backward. I understand that the rest of us were affected by the attack, but it's still their city and it should be up to New Yorkers. Actually, it should be up to whoever owns the property, but if they want to put it to a vote I think it would be silly if I got a vote in the matter. I don't live there and will not have to live with my choice. I could say "Aw, heck, don't be sissies! Let's put up 150 stories, shape it like a one-finger salute, and DARE them there terrorists to knock it down!"

THAT'S NICE. I LIKE PEANUT BUTTER. JIMMY LOVES SUSIE. GREEN GRASS SMELLS GOOD. BLUE GRASS SMELLS BETTER.

Phantasmatic, the Marine incident was all over the news for several weeks, but it was a few years back. It might have been '95 or '96--I think I was still in high school. If you'd been watching the news or reading the paper back then, you'd have seen it.

Some of us do. I wasn't born when Vietnam ended, but I hear stories about the Australians. We love ya, guys, don't worry. You remind us of Texans with British accents. (I know, you don't have "pommy" accents, but that's how it sounds to us, ok?)

That's really up to the New Yorkers, not my problem either way. Personally, I'd like to see large buildings rebuilt there, and I'm sure that makes the most sense economically. They were attacked because they were American commerce centers; how can office space be wrong? On the other hand, it might get hard to find people to volunteer to work on the 85th floor of that site.

Much depends on circumstances. Where would a wild shot go? How fast are you? (Better be FAST to take a gun.) Is he paying attention? Is he sober? Is the gun at arms' length, or in a retention position? If he's got a pistol in a retention position and a good stance, your chance of taking the gun becomes nil. Thankfully, most criminals are idiots and would rather look cool with the arm extended. Many are so stupid that they will come within arms' length, thus voluntarily giving you your only (slim) chance. Unarmed versus a gun, seven yards is too far out. I know, I know. . . . Tueller. But Tueller never promised you would WIN if you attacked unarmed at that distance. He only showed that you could get the first strike in, and that was against an opponent with sidearm holstered. With a gun on you, there is little hope outside arms' length and not much there either. This is why cops get disarmed so much more than private citizens and why such an appalling number of police are killed with their own guns. They have to approach to within touching distance to cuff suspects; if I am holding a man at gunpoint, I can stay out of range and wait for them to come do that part. If you want to be able to disarm someone with a gun, find the fastest, quickest, most economical technique you can. I don't really know what that will be. You will have to attack the gun; attack anywhere else and you may trade blows, so you probably die. Then train that technique as much as you possibly can until you are REALLY fast with it. Blinding fast. Then have a friend try to shoot you with a paintball gun as you try to disarm him. Be ready for a shock.

We all do good and bad things. No argument there. But when you defend Clinton you go too far. Yes, because he was elected after a recovery period began and had the brains not to meddle in it beyond a few small "adjustments" and "tweaks" for which we are now paying dearly.* Of course the current downturn happened under Clinton too, and after he'd had eight years of control, but the point is the man was only President. His impact on the economy was minimal, like all Presidents, but like all Presidents he had credit and blame blindly slapped onto him. Can you name one thing Bill Clinton did to strengthen the economy? How about one thing George Bush did to weaken it? Of course not. The economy is going to come roaring back (it's a normal business cycle) and Bush will get all the credit, which will be as pointless as giving Clinton credit for the '90's. They didn't create the boom; workers and executives in American businesses did that. * Clinton sought to show the "little man" that he felt our pain by keeping those nasty old CEOs from making a lot of money, so he decreed that CEO salaries were limited to $1 million annually. The corporations, of course, went right around this law by giving CEO's stock options. Unfortunately stock options aren't much good as incentives because a smart CEO (anybody smart enough to run a large corporation) can profit from them whether the company is booming or crashing. But damnit, at least we kept those bad other people from making money, which sure made it easier to pay our abusive taxes.

Oh, lighten up, Francis. Geez. The smiley means it's intended to be funny. I have nothing against nerds. I am a nerd in many ways. Being a nerd does not mean you're smart, though many smart people are nerds, and just to cover all the bases, I have nothing against smart people either. Relax. I just told you that I took the SAT at 11 years of age and was invited to attend a specialized residential math and science academy. What kind of kid do you think does that sort of thing? A NERD. Why do you think I was there in that den of nerds in the first place? Because they saw in me the roots of a budding young geek ready to burst into full nerdhood. And when you're a nerd, it's good to have a sense of humor about being a nerd. Ask SaiFightsMS; she gets it. _________________ ____________________________________ * Ignorant Taekwondo beginner. http://www.thefiringline.com [ This Message was edited by: Don Gwinn on 2002-07-16 23:42 ]

Clearly Hobbitbob has learned the lesson. Hell, I'm 24 and I wouldn't want to try to keep up with an 18 year old, much less a student (I don't teach MA but I do teach school.)

He did not specify a Nun with a yardstick, he just said a yardstick. If the attacker is a nun then certain of my statements may require small adjustments. . . .

Here Middle School is generally 6-8. It was still Junior High when I went through, grades 7-8. The theory is that a Middle school is an improved version of Junior High. Junior High is structured like High School to prepare students for it. Middle School has elements of high school and elementary. Kids are put on a "team" with a given set of teachers (where I teach, it's so small each grade only has one team.) Teachers on the same team have the same lunch and planning period, so during planning period they have a team meeting. Parents can come in and be able to get all their child's teachers at one table, which is nice. You also know a lot more about what's going on, and the rules are easier to standardize. Of course, much like "TKD Dojang," "Middle School" is not a copyrighted term and a lot of schools slap it on the sign as a matter of course. But it's not really that big a deal.

YOU TAKE THAT BACK!

Yeah, that must be it. You couldn't possibly be mistaken, after all. And clearly you know more about firearms than I do. I've only been shooting since I was 6 years old, and I've only been a moderator at the premiere firearms site on the planet for about two years now. I only own eight guns, and I only shoot about once a week. Clearly, I'm just dense. Please do. I'm pretty sure it's the complexity of your theory that's been tripping me up so far. . . . Assuming I think the person wants to harm me, I'd be more afraid of the one with the gun. Duh. You, however, said that you would be equally deterred by a yardstick. You said it, not me. It was a silly thing to say, but that's your problem. You must not have simplified enough. Let me get this straight. You are confronted by an attacker. You believe he wants to kill you. However, you see that he is using a weapon which he COULD use to restrain you instead IF he chose to do so. . . . and so you are less afraid? What in the world does it matter what his weapon was designed to do if HE, the PERSON who is about to attack you, intends to kill you? It's ridiculous. Again, could you explain to me what the designer's purpose for the weapon has to do with its real world use? A kitchen knife is not designed to kill. Do you breathe a sigh of relief if someone attacks you with one? That's a shame. I'm really beginning to have a lot of fun explaining the same points over and over. But then, I'm pretty dense, so it doesn't take a lot to entertain me.

I've heard "Everyone dies."