Apathetic Australians?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by tw

Amazing the class of people who find profanity amusing. Are those kids under 5 - and therefore at risk? Kids are at greater risk with lower class parents.

Do you quote Time magazine and UFO as well? WTF?

[tw]

Originally Posted by classicman

Still doing the name calling thing eh? Yet

You too can be low class. All one need do is post profanity and find it amusing. That's not name calling. That is simple reality. A characteristic of low class and poorly educated people who would attack the messenger rather than deal with facts.

Profanity is a strong indicator of low class people who are also easily subverted by wacko extremist ideals. No insult. Just hard reality. Posting profanity with intent only to disparage is routine from TheMercenary.

The accuracy is stunningly obvious by so manyTheMercenary replies. He apparently has trouble with his class status. A inferiority made obvious because he so routinely posts profanity. Makes me wonder if he too was a boy genius. There is a similarity in attitude. Not personal attacks. Just a logical speculation.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by tw

You too can be low class. All one need do is post profanity and find it amusing. That's not name calling. That is simple reality. A characteristic of low class and poorly educated people who would attack the messenger rather than deal with facts.

Profanity is a strong indicator of low class people who are also easily subverted by wacko extremist ideals. No insult. Just hard reality. Posting profanity with intent only to disparage is routine from TheMercenary.

The accuracy is stunningly obvious by so manyTheMercenary replies. He apparently has trouble with his class status. A inferiority made obvious because he so routinely posts profanity. Makes me wonder if he too was a boy genius. There is a similarity in attitude. Not personal attacks. Just a logical speculation.

WTF?

[classicman]

Originally Posted by tw

Amazing the class of people who find profanity amusing. Are those kids under 5 - and therefore at risk? Kids are at greater risk with lower class parents.

I find your diversionary tactics rather amusing. It's what you are good at. You completely ignored the discussion when you were challenged and decided to go on a witch hunt.
Merc may not be used to you doing this, but you've been called out numerous times with the same result. Diversions. Can you link one post where you admitted you were wrong? Just one.

If find it appalling that you hide under the guise of "I'm simply posting facts" - Bullshit.

Get back on topic.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by tw

You too can be low class. All one need do is post profanity and find it amusing. A characteristic of low class and poorly educated people who would attack the messenger rather than deal with facts.

Or one (in general) could just regurgitate a magazine (the Economist) on a daily basis and act as if one was superior to other posters. That's pretty low class too.
Whatever floats yer boat . . .

[Aliantha]

Originally Posted by tw

That kid - also described as boy genius.

That kid who has been denigrated by most of Australia you mean? The one who seems to have a very very low approval rating right here in his own back yard?

The reply was in response to the wide ranging and otherwise diluted posts by Aliantha. Aliantha who claims population increases are due to safer environements. Well, the post contracted that Aliantha supposition. But Aliantha did not even read the post correctly. How curious. My post did not suggest Africa was safer. It obviously suggested Africa is less safe - and still a population boom has occurred. In short, Africa is a perfect example of Aliantha's erroneous conclusions and supporting facts for xoxoxoBruce's reply to that erroneous Aliantha conclusion.

Not once did I suggest that population increases are due soley to safer environments, but thanks for trying to imply what you think I was thinking. Also, I'm pretty sure Bruce doesn't need you of all people defending him. lol

Aliantha - difficult for you to comprehend replies to your posts when you have so much difficulty staying on message. Maybe read what you posted before completely misreading replies? You assumed what you wanted to read rather than first read what was posted. Posted was a summary reply to your many otherwise rambling posts – as quoted above.

Oh the irony.

Where is a common theme in your above quoted posts? Too much eggnog again?

I haven't had a drink in about 7 months. I don't think the same can be said for you after reading this load of tripe! (and re-reading a number of times in order to try and find some 'common meaning or attempt to 'stay on message' rather than simply making a personal attack which I'd always thought you considered beneath you)

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

Also, I'm pretty sure Bruce doesn't need you of all people defending him. lol

I didn't know I was in a fight?

[Aliantha]

No, you just got mentioned in another rambling tw post.

[Shawnee123]

Yeah, I HATE it when someone just regurgitates articles.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

And Ali, the ease of availability that you decry is necessary for getting the private arms in the first place, for snake shooting or for checks and balances against insensate governmental power, however paranoid you want to get about it. They are all in the same parcel.

You've been conned if you think otherwise, I'm afraid.

See, where the hoplophobes have it wrong is that "ease with which" doesn't work only one way. The 'phobes (and believe you me, they are quite nutty) only see the bad guys having the "ease with which," when actual ease-with-which is just as available to the good guys. The 'phobes dodge this reality, as set forth eloquently in Raging Against Self Defense -- an article so sensible no antigunner ever reads it. It has to do with their emotional immaturity combined with an intense suppressed rage. To suppress it, essentially the 'phobes insist they are pacifists -- while underneath, they have a pretty clear understanding of what they themselves would do if they take up a gun -- essentially, all their suppressed rage comes out in the Texas Chainsaw Massacre should they ever have to do lethal battle. Where they fuck up is they think everyone else out there would do the same; and it just ain't so, as the total concealed carry experience demonstrates and which several data they rigidly, absurdly ignore.

And which several data I don't.

No, DanaC, you are so very very profoundly ignorant of all things gun that your own opinions should carry no weight with you. Had you understanding of arms and men -- I do, and you'd sound more like me if you did also -- you would have some idea how correct my views are. You're ignorant enough to think I pull my views on this out of my ass, which is one short step on the ignorance ladder above not knowing how to spell "gun." Fact is, O my patronizable opponent, I draw a lot from the site I linked above: the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, a civil rights organization with few peers. Among those few peers is the NRA-ILA. Get athwart such as these only at your considerable peril. You end up getting outed as either a tyrant or a tyrant-in-waiting.

Anyone managed that trick upon me? No. Would they like to? Probably, since I make them feel terrible for supporting crime, tyranny, oppression and genocide. And the poor suckers won't fix it. Shall they ever manage? Not a clay pigeon's chance.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by tw

Rarely did a family have more than one rifle.

I don't think tw has a source for this one -- and speedily enough, new hardware stores in new towns filled any lack in any event. There was not at any point a huge surplus of supply to demand on the frontier, either. Among rifles, the Spencers, Winchesters, and Henrys (really, the proto-Winchester lever-action) were available at army-surplus prices to both traders and emigrants -- but this is the overall, nationwide picture.

Originally Posted by tw

Even after the Civil War, Custard's company only had single shot rifles at Little Big Horn.

Spelling Custer's name that badly in that fashion and being unaware of it reduces the entire post to a childish joke -- or else should be a datum about the perils of relying on the spellchecker in the machine instead of in the wetware. This is why tw can't claim a mighty intellect when he's up against me. The man cannot write well, yet through some florid madness persists in writing nonetheless, with never a scintilla of improvement in either copy or commonsense.

The Army at the time of Little Big Horn (1876) did have the rather peculiar idea that breechloader cartridge conversions of the Springfield rifle musket would make logistics less trouble through being single-shot. The real reason was funding -- and tens of thousands of rifle muskets available for a conversion kit that was undeniably cheaper than buying cartridge repeaters new. Hence, the trapdoor Springfield, which stayed in at least reserve service up through the Spanish-American War. Call it thirty-five years. Perhaps the most extravant portion of the conversion was the rebarrelling to .50 and .45 calibers and the creation of two new cartridges, the .50-70 and the .45-70 Government. (And England did something equivalent with its 1853 Enfield -- it became the Snider.)

[Urbane Guerrilla]

And come on -- everybody knows too much eggnog gets you under reindeer hooves, not in trouble with the Cellar! Eesh.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by classicman

By the way what do the name calling age of children and your assumptions about Rush and GWB have to do with anything on topic here?

I don't think he'd know. He's not, I think, a father -- and what's the likelihood of anyone wanting his babies?

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

.
Had you understanding of arms and men -- I do, and you'd sound more like me if you did also -- you would have some idea how correct my views are. .

I particularly liked that bit.

[TheMercenary]

Back on the subject of Apathetic Australians:

http://adrock2xander.blogspot.com/20...1_archive.html