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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#541
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |