A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Photo Equipment » 35mm Photo Equipment
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

PING: William Graham!



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #541  
Old November 17th 04, 04:07 AM
Rob Mitchell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article iRimd.102558$R05.20371@attbi_s53,
"William Graham" wrote:

"Rob Mitchell" wrote in message
...

Huge, meaningless rant.........


Would that be the "rant" I actually posted, or yet another "rant" that
you've merely *imagined* that I posted?

Like you have *imagined* that I have ever once suggested that all guns
should simply be eliminated completely from our society.

I've just read, & replied to your article in which you made that very
false claim about me.

As I did there, I will again here challenge you to quote me making any
statement whatsoever to the effect that I believe all guns should be
banned, or immediately retract your bold-faced lie about me.

In that same article I've already quoted you saying what you denied that
you said. You denied having said that even criminals should have the
right to bear arms, but I quoted your November 9 article verbatim in
which you said precisely that.

But you'll be utterly unable to quote what I'm now denying having ever
said, because I never said it in any article I've ever posted. I have
never once expressed any belief that all guns should be eliminated.

Since I don't search people who come into my home, and I believe that
everyone should carry a gun whenever possible, I do believe that you, and
everyone else who comes into my home, has, (or should have) the right to
carry a gun. I believe this right is guaranteed by the second amendment.
Now, having said that, I also believe that you have the right to prohibit
anyone from coming into your home that you choose, for whatever reason you
choose. You can prohibit me from coming into your home just because you
don't like my looks. If you couple that with the fact that you couldn't tell
what I was carrying in my pocket anyway, we are obviously in somewhat of a
quandary here. Your basic right of home ownership takes precedence, I
believe, so you can keep anyone out of your home that you want, for whatever
reason you want.


You're still not addressing exactly what I said. I was quite obviously
talking about when I ***DO*** know you're carrying a gun, regardless of
how I happen to learn it. I say that I need no other reason than that
to order you off my property, & you plainly agree, since above you say,
"I also believe that you have the right to prohibit anyone from coming
into your home that you choose, for whatever reason you choose."

That's exactly right. For ANY reason I choose. That would INCLUDE me
learning that you're carrying a gun onto my property. So indeed you are
plainly agreeing with me that this indeed is a "time" in which you can't
carry a gun, & that thus your own "at all times" argument is specious.
You CANNOT carry a gun at any "time" in which I learn that you're trying
to do so on MY property if I choose to prohibit you from doing so.

Thank you.

Finally.

Does that answer your question?


Yeppers. ;-)

If not, then I don't know
what you want, and I can't help you.


Oh, you've "helped" me quite a bit.

Well, not really.

I knew all along that you agree with me more than you think you do. Not
about everything, of course. But about this particular thing you merely
*thought* your disagreement with me was more substantial than it
actually was.

But I'm sorry, that seems par for the course for you, William. You seem
quite often to think that I'm making a completely different argument
from what I'm actually making. Remember when I was simply challenging
you on your claims that most liberals advocate complete banning of guns,
& also primarily advocate it only because of accidents? Oh no, you
didn't agree with me that that isn't common to the majority, but you
also didn't even *understand* at first what I was challenging you about,
since you kept going off into all sorts of tangents which had nothing at
all to do with my challenge. And now, today, you come up with the
whopper, that I myself actually advocate the utter absurdity of banning
guns completely, something I've never advocated.

And in light of that, I'm now going to AGAIN challenge your claim that
most liberals advocate complete banning of firearms from the populace.
You made the claim that most of the liberals you have met advocate this.
Yet we all see you here making this same claim about me, even though
I've never said such a thing, & don't even come close in actual truth to
believing such a thing. Since you have so obviously attributed falsely
to me an attitude which I simply do not possess, & never have, I now
suspect that you may have also falsely attributed this same attitude to
many of these liberals you have met. I never said such a thing, & yet
you attribute this attitude to me. It now seems likely that you've also
attributed this attitude to these liberals when some of them also have
never said such a thing.

In short, since I now have seen you tell this same lie about me, without
a shred of evidence to support it, I no longer believe your claim that
most of the liberals you've met possess this same attitude. You are
obviously not at all objective about this matter. If you're capable of
making this same mistake about me, you're obviously capable of making it
about others too. All I've ever done is suggest certain very limited
*restrictions* to guns, such as certain very limited *situations* where
people shouldn't be allowed to carry them, or certain very limited
*places* where they shouldn't, such as aboard airlines. That's a far
cry from advocating a complete ban on guns. Yet that alone was enough
for you to jump to the unwarranted conclusion that I actually want a
complete ban from the whole populace. It's quite likely that you've
jumped to the same conclusion about others too. I now feel virtually
certain that at least *some* of these liberals you met merely suggested
some restrictions, & you interpreted that as suggesting a complete ban.

Just as I now know beyond all possible doubt that you did with me.

QUOTE me saying that I believe in eliminating guns, damn you, or retract.
--
"God defines the law now? Does black rod bang on the almighty one's
front-porch anually only to get a harp slammed in his face for his
trouble?" - Subtext Whore on 10-28-04.
  #542  
Old November 17th 04, 04:07 AM
Rob Mitchell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article iRimd.102558$R05.20371@attbi_s53,
"William Graham" wrote:

"Rob Mitchell" wrote in message
...

Huge, meaningless rant.........


Would that be the "rant" I actually posted, or yet another "rant" that
you've merely *imagined* that I posted?

Like you have *imagined* that I have ever once suggested that all guns
should simply be eliminated completely from our society.

I've just read, & replied to your article in which you made that very
false claim about me.

As I did there, I will again here challenge you to quote me making any
statement whatsoever to the effect that I believe all guns should be
banned, or immediately retract your bold-faced lie about me.

In that same article I've already quoted you saying what you denied that
you said. You denied having said that even criminals should have the
right to bear arms, but I quoted your November 9 article verbatim in
which you said precisely that.

But you'll be utterly unable to quote what I'm now denying having ever
said, because I never said it in any article I've ever posted. I have
never once expressed any belief that all guns should be eliminated.

Since I don't search people who come into my home, and I believe that
everyone should carry a gun whenever possible, I do believe that you, and
everyone else who comes into my home, has, (or should have) the right to
carry a gun. I believe this right is guaranteed by the second amendment.
Now, having said that, I also believe that you have the right to prohibit
anyone from coming into your home that you choose, for whatever reason you
choose. You can prohibit me from coming into your home just because you
don't like my looks. If you couple that with the fact that you couldn't tell
what I was carrying in my pocket anyway, we are obviously in somewhat of a
quandary here. Your basic right of home ownership takes precedence, I
believe, so you can keep anyone out of your home that you want, for whatever
reason you want.


You're still not addressing exactly what I said. I was quite obviously
talking about when I ***DO*** know you're carrying a gun, regardless of
how I happen to learn it. I say that I need no other reason than that
to order you off my property, & you plainly agree, since above you say,
"I also believe that you have the right to prohibit anyone from coming
into your home that you choose, for whatever reason you choose."

That's exactly right. For ANY reason I choose. That would INCLUDE me
learning that you're carrying a gun onto my property. So indeed you are
plainly agreeing with me that this indeed is a "time" in which you can't
carry a gun, & that thus your own "at all times" argument is specious.
You CANNOT carry a gun at any "time" in which I learn that you're trying
to do so on MY property if I choose to prohibit you from doing so.

Thank you.

Finally.

Does that answer your question?


Yeppers. ;-)

If not, then I don't know
what you want, and I can't help you.


Oh, you've "helped" me quite a bit.

Well, not really.

I knew all along that you agree with me more than you think you do. Not
about everything, of course. But about this particular thing you merely
*thought* your disagreement with me was more substantial than it
actually was.

But I'm sorry, that seems par for the course for you, William. You seem
quite often to think that I'm making a completely different argument
from what I'm actually making. Remember when I was simply challenging
you on your claims that most liberals advocate complete banning of guns,
& also primarily advocate it only because of accidents? Oh no, you
didn't agree with me that that isn't common to the majority, but you
also didn't even *understand* at first what I was challenging you about,
since you kept going off into all sorts of tangents which had nothing at
all to do with my challenge. And now, today, you come up with the
whopper, that I myself actually advocate the utter absurdity of banning
guns completely, something I've never advocated.

And in light of that, I'm now going to AGAIN challenge your claim that
most liberals advocate complete banning of firearms from the populace.
You made the claim that most of the liberals you have met advocate this.
Yet we all see you here making this same claim about me, even though
I've never said such a thing, & don't even come close in actual truth to
believing such a thing. Since you have so obviously attributed falsely
to me an attitude which I simply do not possess, & never have, I now
suspect that you may have also falsely attributed this same attitude to
many of these liberals you have met. I never said such a thing, & yet
you attribute this attitude to me. It now seems likely that you've also
attributed this attitude to these liberals when some of them also have
never said such a thing.

In short, since I now have seen you tell this same lie about me, without
a shred of evidence to support it, I no longer believe your claim that
most of the liberals you've met possess this same attitude. You are
obviously not at all objective about this matter. If you're capable of
making this same mistake about me, you're obviously capable of making it
about others too. All I've ever done is suggest certain very limited
*restrictions* to guns, such as certain very limited *situations* where
people shouldn't be allowed to carry them, or certain very limited
*places* where they shouldn't, such as aboard airlines. That's a far
cry from advocating a complete ban on guns. Yet that alone was enough
for you to jump to the unwarranted conclusion that I actually want a
complete ban from the whole populace. It's quite likely that you've
jumped to the same conclusion about others too. I now feel virtually
certain that at least *some* of these liberals you met merely suggested
some restrictions, & you interpreted that as suggesting a complete ban.

Just as I now know beyond all possible doubt that you did with me.

QUOTE me saying that I believe in eliminating guns, damn you, or retract.
--
"God defines the law now? Does black rod bang on the almighty one's
front-porch anually only to get a harp slammed in his face for his
trouble?" - Subtext Whore on 10-28-04.
  #543  
Old November 17th 04, 04:07 AM
Rob Mitchell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article iRimd.102558$R05.20371@attbi_s53,
"William Graham" wrote:

"Rob Mitchell" wrote in message
...

Huge, meaningless rant.........


Would that be the "rant" I actually posted, or yet another "rant" that
you've merely *imagined* that I posted?

Like you have *imagined* that I have ever once suggested that all guns
should simply be eliminated completely from our society.

I've just read, & replied to your article in which you made that very
false claim about me.

As I did there, I will again here challenge you to quote me making any
statement whatsoever to the effect that I believe all guns should be
banned, or immediately retract your bold-faced lie about me.

In that same article I've already quoted you saying what you denied that
you said. You denied having said that even criminals should have the
right to bear arms, but I quoted your November 9 article verbatim in
which you said precisely that.

But you'll be utterly unable to quote what I'm now denying having ever
said, because I never said it in any article I've ever posted. I have
never once expressed any belief that all guns should be eliminated.

Since I don't search people who come into my home, and I believe that
everyone should carry a gun whenever possible, I do believe that you, and
everyone else who comes into my home, has, (or should have) the right to
carry a gun. I believe this right is guaranteed by the second amendment.
Now, having said that, I also believe that you have the right to prohibit
anyone from coming into your home that you choose, for whatever reason you
choose. You can prohibit me from coming into your home just because you
don't like my looks. If you couple that with the fact that you couldn't tell
what I was carrying in my pocket anyway, we are obviously in somewhat of a
quandary here. Your basic right of home ownership takes precedence, I
believe, so you can keep anyone out of your home that you want, for whatever
reason you want.


You're still not addressing exactly what I said. I was quite obviously
talking about when I ***DO*** know you're carrying a gun, regardless of
how I happen to learn it. I say that I need no other reason than that
to order you off my property, & you plainly agree, since above you say,
"I also believe that you have the right to prohibit anyone from coming
into your home that you choose, for whatever reason you choose."

That's exactly right. For ANY reason I choose. That would INCLUDE me
learning that you're carrying a gun onto my property. So indeed you are
plainly agreeing with me that this indeed is a "time" in which you can't
carry a gun, & that thus your own "at all times" argument is specious.
You CANNOT carry a gun at any "time" in which I learn that you're trying
to do so on MY property if I choose to prohibit you from doing so.

Thank you.

Finally.

Does that answer your question?


Yeppers. ;-)

If not, then I don't know
what you want, and I can't help you.


Oh, you've "helped" me quite a bit.

Well, not really.

I knew all along that you agree with me more than you think you do. Not
about everything, of course. But about this particular thing you merely
*thought* your disagreement with me was more substantial than it
actually was.

But I'm sorry, that seems par for the course for you, William. You seem
quite often to think that I'm making a completely different argument
from what I'm actually making. Remember when I was simply challenging
you on your claims that most liberals advocate complete banning of guns,
& also primarily advocate it only because of accidents? Oh no, you
didn't agree with me that that isn't common to the majority, but you
also didn't even *understand* at first what I was challenging you about,
since you kept going off into all sorts of tangents which had nothing at
all to do with my challenge. And now, today, you come up with the
whopper, that I myself actually advocate the utter absurdity of banning
guns completely, something I've never advocated.

And in light of that, I'm now going to AGAIN challenge your claim that
most liberals advocate complete banning of firearms from the populace.
You made the claim that most of the liberals you have met advocate this.
Yet we all see you here making this same claim about me, even though
I've never said such a thing, & don't even come close in actual truth to
believing such a thing. Since you have so obviously attributed falsely
to me an attitude which I simply do not possess, & never have, I now
suspect that you may have also falsely attributed this same attitude to
many of these liberals you have met. I never said such a thing, & yet
you attribute this attitude to me. It now seems likely that you've also
attributed this attitude to these liberals when some of them also have
never said such a thing.

In short, since I now have seen you tell this same lie about me, without
a shred of evidence to support it, I no longer believe your claim that
most of the liberals you've met possess this same attitude. You are
obviously not at all objective about this matter. If you're capable of
making this same mistake about me, you're obviously capable of making it
about others too. All I've ever done is suggest certain very limited
*restrictions* to guns, such as certain very limited *situations* where
people shouldn't be allowed to carry them, or certain very limited
*places* where they shouldn't, such as aboard airlines. That's a far
cry from advocating a complete ban on guns. Yet that alone was enough
for you to jump to the unwarranted conclusion that I actually want a
complete ban from the whole populace. It's quite likely that you've
jumped to the same conclusion about others too. I now feel virtually
certain that at least *some* of these liberals you met merely suggested
some restrictions, & you interpreted that as suggesting a complete ban.

Just as I now know beyond all possible doubt that you did with me.

QUOTE me saying that I believe in eliminating guns, damn you, or retract.
--
"God defines the law now? Does black rod bang on the almighty one's
front-porch anually only to get a harp slammed in his face for his
trouble?" - Subtext Whore on 10-28-04.
  #544  
Old November 17th 04, 04:07 AM
Rob Mitchell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article iRimd.102558$R05.20371@attbi_s53,
"William Graham" wrote:

"Rob Mitchell" wrote in message
...

Huge, meaningless rant.........


Would that be the "rant" I actually posted, or yet another "rant" that
you've merely *imagined* that I posted?

Like you have *imagined* that I have ever once suggested that all guns
should simply be eliminated completely from our society.

I've just read, & replied to your article in which you made that very
false claim about me.

As I did there, I will again here challenge you to quote me making any
statement whatsoever to the effect that I believe all guns should be
banned, or immediately retract your bold-faced lie about me.

In that same article I've already quoted you saying what you denied that
you said. You denied having said that even criminals should have the
right to bear arms, but I quoted your November 9 article verbatim in
which you said precisely that.

But you'll be utterly unable to quote what I'm now denying having ever
said, because I never said it in any article I've ever posted. I have
never once expressed any belief that all guns should be eliminated.

Since I don't search people who come into my home, and I believe that
everyone should carry a gun whenever possible, I do believe that you, and
everyone else who comes into my home, has, (or should have) the right to
carry a gun. I believe this right is guaranteed by the second amendment.
Now, having said that, I also believe that you have the right to prohibit
anyone from coming into your home that you choose, for whatever reason you
choose. You can prohibit me from coming into your home just because you
don't like my looks. If you couple that with the fact that you couldn't tell
what I was carrying in my pocket anyway, we are obviously in somewhat of a
quandary here. Your basic right of home ownership takes precedence, I
believe, so you can keep anyone out of your home that you want, for whatever
reason you want.


You're still not addressing exactly what I said. I was quite obviously
talking about when I ***DO*** know you're carrying a gun, regardless of
how I happen to learn it. I say that I need no other reason than that
to order you off my property, & you plainly agree, since above you say,
"I also believe that you have the right to prohibit anyone from coming
into your home that you choose, for whatever reason you choose."

That's exactly right. For ANY reason I choose. That would INCLUDE me
learning that you're carrying a gun onto my property. So indeed you are
plainly agreeing with me that this indeed is a "time" in which you can't
carry a gun, & that thus your own "at all times" argument is specious.
You CANNOT carry a gun at any "time" in which I learn that you're trying
to do so on MY property if I choose to prohibit you from doing so.

Thank you.

Finally.

Does that answer your question?


Yeppers. ;-)

If not, then I don't know
what you want, and I can't help you.


Oh, you've "helped" me quite a bit.

Well, not really.

I knew all along that you agree with me more than you think you do. Not
about everything, of course. But about this particular thing you merely
*thought* your disagreement with me was more substantial than it
actually was.

But I'm sorry, that seems par for the course for you, William. You seem
quite often to think that I'm making a completely different argument
from what I'm actually making. Remember when I was simply challenging
you on your claims that most liberals advocate complete banning of guns,
& also primarily advocate it only because of accidents? Oh no, you
didn't agree with me that that isn't common to the majority, but you
also didn't even *understand* at first what I was challenging you about,
since you kept going off into all sorts of tangents which had nothing at
all to do with my challenge. And now, today, you come up with the
whopper, that I myself actually advocate the utter absurdity of banning
guns completely, something I've never advocated.

And in light of that, I'm now going to AGAIN challenge your claim that
most liberals advocate complete banning of firearms from the populace.
You made the claim that most of the liberals you have met advocate this.
Yet we all see you here making this same claim about me, even though
I've never said such a thing, & don't even come close in actual truth to
believing such a thing. Since you have so obviously attributed falsely
to me an attitude which I simply do not possess, & never have, I now
suspect that you may have also falsely attributed this same attitude to
many of these liberals you have met. I never said such a thing, & yet
you attribute this attitude to me. It now seems likely that you've also
attributed this attitude to these liberals when some of them also have
never said such a thing.

In short, since I now have seen you tell this same lie about me, without
a shred of evidence to support it, I no longer believe your claim that
most of the liberals you've met possess this same attitude. You are
obviously not at all objective about this matter. If you're capable of
making this same mistake about me, you're obviously capable of making it
about others too. All I've ever done is suggest certain very limited
*restrictions* to guns, such as certain very limited *situations* where
people shouldn't be allowed to carry them, or certain very limited
*places* where they shouldn't, such as aboard airlines. That's a far
cry from advocating a complete ban on guns. Yet that alone was enough
for you to jump to the unwarranted conclusion that I actually want a
complete ban from the whole populace. It's quite likely that you've
jumped to the same conclusion about others too. I now feel virtually
certain that at least *some* of these liberals you met merely suggested
some restrictions, & you interpreted that as suggesting a complete ban.

Just as I now know beyond all possible doubt that you did with me.

QUOTE me saying that I believe in eliminating guns, damn you, or retract.
--
"God defines the law now? Does black rod bang on the almighty one's
front-porch anually only to get a harp slammed in his face for his
trouble?" - Subtext Whore on 10-28-04.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
PUBLIC DATA - William Graham William Graham 35mm Photo Equipment 0 July 21st 04 07:37 AM
Cowardly Groupline Cut #4 Ping Snuh: *TRUCE* - I'm being serious this time. ß¡g ®êÞ Hë£müt Digital Photography 1 July 17th 04 03:14 AM
[SI] A reminder, and Ping Bandicoot Al Denelsbeck 35mm Photo Equipment 1 July 16th 04 03:23 AM
Ping Rec.Photo.Digital Daedalus Digital Photography 0 July 8th 04 09:42 PM
William E Graham Data Mark M 35mm Photo Equipment 6 June 16th 04 03:38 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:30 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.